Biden to cancel Keystone XL pipeline permit.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Timjoebillybob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    9,364
    149
    There sure is a lot of fearmongering in this thread.

    Taken from an excellent How Stuff Works article on the matter:

    426,720 barrels of oil have already leaked from the pipeline. The pipeline has been controversial for many many reasons, one being how it runs over several major freshwater supplies. Maybe here in Indiana you may not be concerned about that, but if I were in Nebraska I sure as hell would be.

    And, as more wind and solar farms are erected in our State, than that cost of electricity will certainly stay low.

    That's silly to think it's some conspiracy.

    If we were to draw out a curve of renewable energy resource cost, the front part of the curve is going to be high, then nosedive. Why? Implementation. The infrastructure needs to be built first, which requires an upfront cost. There is no such variable with petroleum right now: the infrastructure already exists.
    I wouldn't say fearmongering. And your How stuff works article is blown out of the water by your NPR article. The entire basis for the HSW article was that the Pres can't influence prices due to the fact that the US only has X amount of the worlds oil. Per the NPR article we were going to be the number 1 crude producer by now, and we are. Canada is currently number 5 and if the Keystone XL pipeline is completed and put to use I wouldn't be surprised to see them move up. That pipeline is mainly if not only for transporting Canadian oil. So by restricting the number 1 and 5 producers, that's not going to effect prices?

    I'm going to need a cite for that 427k bbls have already leaked from a pipeline that hasn't had a drop of oil flow through it yet. Although I'm assuming you are talking about the current Keystone pipeline and not the XL which is what Biden's talking about nixing. And if I'm right, I'm still going to need a cite. Best I can find there have been leaks totaling about 800k gallons, which is about 19k bbl. Or 25-30 train tankers. And that is over 10 yrs.

    Why do you think it will stay low? If you're in NWI I'm assuming you have NIPSCO, do you ever get the same letter that I do asking if you want to go to "green energy" and that it will only cost $X more per KWH which works out to $X for the average household? The only reason the wind/solar farms are profitable now is due to govt subsidies for construction and that NIPSCO and the others are required by law to purchase energy from them at a cost higher than what NIPSCO can produce it for themselves. Which is the reason for the letters. I have a question, if you get those letters, have you volunteered to pay more?

    And why do you think it's a conspiracy? They have virtually already came out and said it. Obama stated he wanted to make it too expensive to burn coal, or as he said "They can build a coal power plant but they'll go bankrupt" when talking about cap and trade. His Sec of Energy stated that they needed to get the price of gas up to European prices which were $9-10 per gallon, they got us halfway there.

    For the infrastructure, you are forgetting that for wind/solar you'll have to rebuild the entire thing every 20-25 years for wind. Maybe only most of it every 25-30 for solar.
    The United States is one of the top 5 crude oil producers in the world, becoming #1 as of 2020. Relayed in this NPR interview transcript, we are now also a net exporter of crude oil.

    I'm having a tough time understanding your "in the reverse took us from being a net consumer to a net producer of oil" remark. Are you saying that being a net producer is a bad thing? I honestly don't know and would like an expansion upon that thought, please.
    That's the transcript I was talking about, which shows just how wrong the other article is.

    If the current policies took us from being a net consumer to a net producer, couldn't new policies reverse that? Would that be a bad thing?
    I hope we can get there one day and I don't think that's so wrong.

    You know more about this than I do, but aren't hydro-electric plants capable of addressing the industrial power load you speak of, too? I don't know the number, but I could swear I've read of a hydro-electric dam or 2 in Indiana. Wouldn't adding in wind and solar as supplemental help even more, if that were the case?


    This thread is moving fast, so you may have missed it, but I am for nuclear energy. I think that ship is sailing for the United States, though.


    I don't think I've directly offered my commentary on this, but you are correct. The environmental impact for producing an energy vehicle is greater than producing a gasoline equivalent. Electric-vehicles are going to become the norm, though, and as the focus on renewable energy sources shifts, then the industry will too.

    I found this Business Insider article to be a great read. I've picked a couple things in that article pertaining to our discussion, but there's a lot more fascinating information to the steps manufacturers are taking to lower the environmental impact
    Hoping we can get there someday, and thinking we are there now with the current tech we have. And pushing for it, are two different things.

    There are 5 hydro-electric dams in IN, I live about 10 minutes from two of them. They don't produce much, and that's not even counting years like this one where they produced even less due to low water levels.

    Yes I missed it, and I'm afraid you are probably correct. Almost entirely due to overblown fears. From my understanding the Three Mile Island incident released about as much radioactivity as the X-rays I had when I fell a couple of months ago.

    And no offense, but that article is BS. BI may not have known it when it was published, but it is. Look at who they cite in it, and for the one especially look at their funding. There is no way an electric car will make up the difference in 6 mo. This isn't even about environmental damages from the mining/processing/etc strictly from a carbon point, over the lifespan of the vehicles the carbon output from manufacture to end of life including fuel the dinosaur fueled on comes out on top. Mainly due to the lifespan of the batteries.

    I think electric cars are cool. Intriguing. I could see myself buying one as a toy if I have the dollars to throw at it. But for that kind of money I could think of better toys. And I don't think my truck will be replaced with an electric version anytime soon. They just don't have the capacity yet to be a practical replacement.
    I agree. Although I have toyed with the idea of making a hybrid truck, except I have nowhere near the knowledge/skills to do it how I would like. 4 wheel drive with a motor on each, regenerative braking with a smaller battery and a diesel generator. Torque from bottom to top, it would work similar to a hybrid around town and closer to a diesel-electric pusher locomotive on the highway. Simpler would be 2 motors driving the front and read differentials, simplest would be a single motor feeding into both diffs. But with each simplier you get less efficiency.
    Tesla recharging will happen in off peak hours mostly.

    Storage is an up and coming technology.

    Flywheels and batteries are already being deployed to help maintain frequency control.

    DER is the future.
    And off peak hours are exactly when solar doesn't produce at all, and wind is lower.

    Yes storage is an up and coming technology. One thing about storage, it doesn't come for free and at least for solar you have to have with everything perfect at least 3x the production ability so that storage has something for the off hours.

    Yep der sure is, but the future is not now. Nor will it be for a long while IMO.
    You guys would argue all day long for steam engines in the face of internal combustion. Unable to see the future for the present
    Nah, we'd argue that the steam engine is the best when the internal combustion wasn't reliable/feasible.
    Then you should know that they can transmit power from where solar is good in the winter.
    And requiring even more generating capacity on top of what I mentioned above.

    Have you ever been in a powerplant, particularly a coal fired powerplant? Ever stood inside the boiler, repair the wall tubes, slag tank, grinders, sootblowers, ID, FD fans etc.?

    I have this isnt theory for me, its real life stuff
    I've been in a few, been inside the boilers. But didn't do any repairs, I cleaned them so you could. Nasty job but interesting at times. Watching them use det cord to clean the tubes inside was cool. The look on a new guys face when we went inside to get the next level ready for the cord was funny. He was looking at the cord and asked what it was, I said det cord. He asked what that was. I told him an explosive...
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,145
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Tesla recharging will happen in off peak hours mostly.

    Storage is an up and coming technology.

    Flywheels and batteries are already being deployed to help maintain frequency control.

    IPL has deployed battery power already.

    DER is the future.
    The time is coming when alternative energy sources are on par with fossil sources. It’s not here yet. Forcing its use now is an ideological solution not a practical one.

    But, as an individual, it is practical to live mostly off-grid. If I were a younger man living in this time I would probably homestead off grid. Solar, battery backup, well, septic. But I’d still be dependent on fossil fuels. Electric Tractors aren’t anywhere close to practical yet. Electric vehicles are closer to practical, but not quite. It’s not practical to tow with an electric truck. Energy density just isn’t there yet.
     
    Last edited:

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    I wouldn't say fearmongering. And your How stuff works article is blown out of the water by your NPR article. The entire basis for the HSW article was that the Pres can't influence prices due to the fact that the US only has X amount of the worlds oil. Per the NPR article we were going to be the number 1 crude producer by now, and we are. Canada is currently number 5 and if the Keystone XL pipeline is completed and put to use I wouldn't be surprised to see them move up. That pipeline is mainly if not only for transporting Canadian oil. So by restricting the number 1 and 5 producers, that's not going to effect prices?

    I'm going to need a cite for that 427k bbls have already leaked from a pipeline that hasn't had a drop of oil flow through it yet. Although I'm assuming you are talking about the current Keystone pipeline and not the XL which is what Biden's talking about nixing. And if I'm right, I'm still going to need a cite. Best I can find there have been leaks totaling about 800k gallons, which is about 19k bbl. Or 25-30 train tankers. And that is over 10 yrs.

    Why do you think it will stay low? If you're in NWI I'm assuming you have NIPSCO, do you ever get the same letter that I do asking if you want to go to "green energy" and that it will only cost $X more per KWH which works out to $X for the average household? The only reason the wind/solar farms are profitable now is due to govt subsidies for construction and that NIPSCO and the others are required by law to purchase energy from them at a cost higher than what NIPSCO can produce it for themselves. Which is the reason for the letters. I have a question, if you get those letters, have you volunteered to pay more?

    And why do you think it's a conspiracy? They have virtually already came out and said it. Obama stated he wanted to make it too expensive to burn coal, or as he said "They can build a coal power plant but they'll go bankrupt" when talking about cap and trade. His Sec of Energy stated that they needed to get the price of gas up to European prices which were $9-10 per gallon, they got us halfway there.

    For the infrastructure, you are forgetting that for wind/solar you'll have to rebuild the entire thing every 20-25 years for wind. Maybe only most of it every 25-30 for solar.

    That's the transcript I was talking about, which shows just how wrong the other article is.

    If the current policies took us from being a net consumer to a net producer, couldn't new policies reverse that? Would that be a bad thing?

    Hoping we can get there someday, and thinking we are there now with the current tech we have. And pushing for it, are two different things.

    There are 5 hydro-electric dams in IN, I live about 10 minutes from two of them. They don't produce much, and that's not even counting years like this one where they produced even less due to low water levels.

    Yes I missed it, and I'm afraid you are probably correct. Almost entirely due to overblown fears. From my understanding the Three Mile Island incident released about as much radioactivity as the X-rays I had when I fell a couple of months ago.

    And no offense, but that article is BS. BI may not have known it when it was published, but it is. Look at who they cite in it, and for the one especially look at their funding. There is no way an electric car will make up the difference in 6 mo. This isn't even about environmental damages from the mining/processing/etc strictly from a carbon point, over the lifespan of the vehicles the carbon output from manufacture to end of life including fuel the dinosaur fueled on comes out on top. Mainly due to the lifespan of the batteries.


    I agree. Although I have toyed with the idea of making a hybrid truck, except I have nowhere near the knowledge/skills to do it how I would like. 4 wheel drive with a motor on each, regenerative braking with a smaller battery and a diesel generator. Torque from bottom to top, it would work similar to a hybrid around town and closer to a diesel-electric pusher locomotive on the highway. Simpler would be 2 motors driving the front and read differentials, simplest would be a single motor feeding into both diffs. But with each simplier you get less efficiency.

    And off peak hours are exactly when solar doesn't produce at all, and wind is lower.

    Yes storage is an up and coming technology. One thing about storage, it doesn't come for free and at least for solar you have to have with everything perfect at least 3x the production ability so that storage has something for the off hours.

    Yep der sure is, but the future is not now. Nor will it be for a long while IMO.

    Nah, we'd argue that the steam engine is the best when the internal combustion wasn't reliable/feasible.

    And requiring even more generating capacity on top of what I mentioned above.


    I've been in a few, been inside the boilers. But didn't do any repairs, I cleaned them so you could. Nasty job but interesting at times. Watching them use det cord to clean the tubes inside was cool. The look on a new guys face when we went inside to get the next level ready for the cord was funny. He was looking at the cord and asked what it was, I said det cord. He asked what that was. I told him an explosive...
    You are demanding that a leftist use his head for something other than a hat rack. That's not fair!
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    Ok. If you go back through my posts. I said the future is solar, wind,(there are others , waves for example) battery (storage really, underground caverns are Even discussed as possibilities) and DER.

    Not solar, wind, and a huge solar plant at the equator!

    DER is the future! Discuss!
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    DC, you can call it HVDC but since no one was talking about AC as EHV and what not....

    There are 2 DC ties to ERCOT. There are 6 tying the EI to the West.

    There is DC transmission used to move power from western coal plants to the East. DC moves thousands of MW from northern Canada hydro plants south, and it is used in Michigan.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,145
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Ok. If you go back through my posts. I said the future is solar, wind,(there are others , waves for example) battery (storage really, underground caverns are Even discussed as possibilities) and DER.

    Not solar, wind, and a huge solar plant at the equator!

    DER is the future! Discuss!
    DER, probably. Solar. Yes. Wind? No. Not that practical. Wind freaks are retarded. It's an overall failure. The future should have nuclear power in it somewhere.

    If you have to subsidize it to make it even close to competitive, it's not there yet. It's only an ideological mandate. When it's ready there will be a market demand that doesn't require subsidizing.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    1611061617563.png

    Pretty much morning peak. Wind is almost 14% of generation at morning peak and within one plant of catching nuclear.

    Solar is zero (wonder why? :)) That's partially right. Another reason are many solar plants are behind the meter.

    Solar is about where wind was 15 years ago but there are so many solar plants in the queue to be built now that in another 15 years they may be about equal.

    We are not there yet, but perhaps the biggest benefit of coal and gas is spinning mass maintaining inertia and their use as dynamic MVAR sources. Some companies, including ones in Indiana are beginning to/have converted coal plants over to synchronous condensers.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    DER, probably. Solar. Yes. Wind? No. Not that practical. Wind freaks are retarded. It's an overall failure. The future should have nuclear power in it somewhere.

    If you have to subsidize it to make it even close to competitive, it's not there yet. It's only an ideological mandate. When it's ready there will be a market demand that doesn't require subsidizing.
    I believe federal subsidies to Wind generation ended in 2018. On that someone can feel free to correct me.

    Just how much are subsidies here?

    In the world I believe the number is over 50% I want to say 70% of the places with no electricity, it IS cheaper to build solar than new coal/gas power plants.

    While it will happen here eventually, it is already happening elsewhere for purely economic reasons.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,145
    113
    Gtown-ish
    View attachment 121544

    Pretty much morning peak. Wind is almost 14% of generation at morning peak and within one plant of catching nuclear.

    Solar is zero (wonder why? :)) That's partially right. Another reason are many solar plants are behind the meter.

    Solar is about where wind was 15 years ago but there are so many solar plants in the queue to be built now that in another 15 years they may be about equal.

    We are not there yet, but perhaps the biggest benefit of coal and gas is spinning mass maintaining inertia and their use as dynamic MVAR sources. Some companies, including ones in Indiana are beginning to/have converted coal plants over to synchronous condensers.
    I don't think scaled solar farms are very practical. Where I see a good use for solar is for personal use; getting off dependency on the grid. It takes a long time to recoup investment, but it will pay for itself eventually. Around the Ohio valley area, we're in C to D territory because we don't have a lot of sunny days, but with batteries and more capacity, it's doable. And prices are coming down to make it okay. I think as more companies start manufacturing solar shingle roofing, prices will come down a bit.

    Wind? **** that. It has very limited growth potential at this point. It's very expensive. And as someone mentioned, it's only viable at all because it's subsidized. If we want to cut emissions in the US working to make solar cheap enough for consumers is the biggest bang for the buck.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,145
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I believe federal subsidies to Wind generation ended in 2018. On that someone can feel free to correct me.

    Just how much are subsidies here?

    In the world I believe the number is over 50% I want to say 70% of the places with no electricity, it IS cheaper to build solar than new coal/gas power plants.

    While it will happen here eventually, it is already happening elsewhere for purely economic reasons.
    The tax credit ended in 2020. It's too early to tell the impact of that. But there are other federal subsidies besides that. States also subsidize their wind farms. It's not at all a fair claim that wind energy is self-sufficient on its own without subsidies and without raising rates. It's a dog turd that we need to get off the lawn.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    The tax credit ended in 2020. It's too early to tell the impact of that. But there are other federal subsidies besides that. States also subsidize their wind farms. It's not at all a fair claim that wind energy is self-sufficient on its own without subsidies and without raising rates. It's a dog turd that we need to get off the lawn.
    Let's make sure we are talking same language.

    Are you referring to subsidies and credits for industrial wind farms ending in 2020?

    I don't care what states do. I don't believe federal is the way to go.

    When people talk about subsidies, sometimes they sound like that we got all these coal, gas, and nuclear plants without any.

    Not making the claim that wind is self sufficient economically, but what has convinced you of that point?

    Do you know the total cost per MW over the life of a wind turbine? I don't
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    Good to know:


    • Recently in China, a 12GW power was transmitted at 11kV DC over a distance of 3300km.
    • In addition, the longest HVDC power transmission line in the world is 2385km
    • in Madeira, Brazil


    Not voicing for everything on the site but skimmed it.
     

    Jaybird1980

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 22, 2016
    11,929
    113
    North Central
    Let's make sure we are talking same language.

    Are you referring to subsidies and credits for industrial wind farms ending in 2020?

    I don't care what states do. I don't believe federal is the way to go.

    When people talk about subsidies, sometimes they sound like that we got all these coal, gas, and nuclear plants without any.

    Not making the claim that wind is self sufficient economically, but what has convinced you of that point?

    Do you know the total cost per MW over the life of a wind turbine? I don't
    I don't know the MW over the life, but the cost is huge, maintenance is expensive and lifespan not that great, takes up huge real estate.
    IMO it doesn't make sense for future

    Solar: like you said it's good for other side of the meter. I think you will see huge increase in rooftop solar. I don't think you're gonna see a huge array of panels in a far off place. Storage capabilities aren't there, not even close. And sending a few DC MW on a very small scale doesn't mean its feasible for our country

    Nuclear is great IMO, but people are to scared

    Nat.gas is fine until they ruin it with a million regulations and increase the cost, and it's really not a huge step above coal
     
    Last edited:

    Jaybird1980

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jan 22, 2016
    11,929
    113
    North Central
    that is not the US, they have been at it for years.
    we dont have the infrastructure to support it even if we wanted

    I was supposed to quote the part about China
     

    Timjoebillybob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Feb 27, 2009
    9,364
    149
    I believe federal subsidies to Wind generation ended in 2018. On that someone can feel free to correct me.

    Just how much are subsidies here?

    In the world I believe the number is over 50% I want to say 70% of the places with no electricity, it IS cheaper to build solar than new coal/gas power plants.

    While it will happen here eventually, it is already happening elsewhere for purely economic reasons.
    Not sure about actual subsidies, but everyone in IN is pretty much directly subsidizing them (yes I know that all govt subsidies are paid by taxes). Power companies are required to purchase wind/solar power at a set rate, that rate is higher than it would cost them to produce their own energy.

    I don't know about where you live, but where I do the local power co (NIPSCO) sends out letters asking us if we want to go "green" for $X per KWH and that it will only cost the average household $X per day... Do you get the same offers? And if so do you sign up for the program?

    How much of that being cheaper is things like transmission lines? You have towns/villages spread out, you can either build one large coal/gas plant and build transmission lines to all of them. Or build smaller solar/wind without having to build a large distribution network.
     

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    Not sure about actual subsidies, but everyone in IN is pretty much directly subsidizing them (yes I know that all govt subsidies are paid by taxes). Power companies are required to purchase wind/solar power at a set rate, that rate is higher than it would cost them to produce their own energy.

    I don't know about where you live, but where I do the local power co (NIPSCO) sends out letters asking us if we want to go "green" for $X per KWH and that it will only cost the average household $X per day... Do you get the same offers? And if so do you sign up for the program?

    How much of that being cheaper is things like transmission lines? You have towns/villages spread out, you can either build one large coal/gas plant and build transmission lines to all of them. Or build smaller solar/wind without having to build a large distribution network.
    Haven't mastered splitting quotes yet so sorry if this is a little confusing.

    On a side note.....my German Shepherd just showed great character......lifted his head off my feet so he could listen to David Allan Coe in Stereo. If that ain't country....

    Anyway, if I haven't made it clear, I am not in favor of subsidizing green energy or anything else really. HOWEVER, I understand it better when its done by a state. At the the state's PUC has a say instead of FERC mandating but anyway....

    I will leave the analysis of the economics to the folks here that like to argue specifics like that. I am simply saying alternative energy sources are going to displace coal first most likely.

    When was the last time the NRC permitted a nuclear plant? I think it was Watts Bar in TVA? Those don't go up every year.

    Gas is a unique creature right now because it is so cheap it is undercutting coal and it is much cheaper to interconnect a gas turbine. That's why we are seeing a lot of combined cycle gas turbines built AND seeing old coal plants turned into natural gas fired plants. Noblesville CC is an example of that.

    The need for reactive resources that coal plants are being met by synchronous condensers. Since you are in NIPSCO, that's what they converted the old Bailey Generating station into. When people want to talk about power transfer and raise objections like we were discussing last night, thats usually what they are discussing, not really MW output but MVar output. The longer the lines, the more angular stability becomes a factor.

    I don't actually know if I see an option to go green on the bill, I just pay it. I am on Duke's system. I get too pissed off about the rider for the Edwardsport IGCC plant that had so many cost overruns. If my bill fluctuates, I may look at it some.

    Transmission lines are being beefed up, but not to add new coal. Several 345 kV corridors (3?) have come into service in the last few years to move wind energy from Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, etc this direction. You will always run into NIMBY issues with transmission.
     
    Last edited:

    foszoe

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Jun 2, 2011
    16,052
    113
    Look at wind now. It is over Nuclear generation, over Natural Gas Generation and over 1/2 of Coal output. See that little Solar number?

    This time next year it will be probably be in the thousands. That won't be Biden's fault. The interconnection queue for these things has a multiyear backlog.

    Like it or not its already here.





    1611090085335.png
     
    Top Bottom