Why aren't environmentalists upset that 1 million barrels will be traveling every day from Vancouver to Asia on the open ocean?

[surada]

If you're actually interested in environmentalists views about Keystone XL, read the article at this link:

What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline?

How a single pipeline project became the epicenter of an enormous environmental, public health, and civil rights battle.

www.nrdc.org

Thanks for the link.


The Keystone XL pipeline extension, proposed by energy infrastructure company TC Energy (formerly TransCanada) in 2008, was designed to transport the planet’s dirtiest fossil fuel to market—fast. An expansion of the company’s existing Keystone Pipeline System, which has been operating since 2010 (and is already sending Canadian tar sands crude from Alberta to various processing hubs in the middle of the United States), it would dramatically increase capacity to process the 168 billion barrels of crude oil locked up under Canada’s boreal forest. To be precise, it would transport 830,000 barrels of Alberta tar sands oil per day to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Tar Sands are like strip mining.

 

[danielpalos]

Putting infrastructure underground could mean mass storage along with mass transit in energy delivery.

View attachment 478882
View attachment 478883
Here's what you can get when you put it underground:
View attachment 478884

An enormous mess created before anyone knows there's a leak and a far, far more difficult problem to correct since everything in the area has to be excavated first.

Not with appropriate infrastructure. Conduits could be contained one within the other with the bigger conduit providing a container for smaller conduits actually transporting energy. Electrical and oil could be in separate conduits within a larger conduit that contains all the rest.

A lovely idea. But when soon no one will be using fossil fuels anymore, why bother?

Not entirely true. Petroleum products will be with us until better alternatives become more cost effective. Besides, it would be more work to ensure the infrastructure is modular and can be upgraded more conveniently.

 

[Crick]

I'm glad to see you realize that the alternatives are better in some manner. But I don't see modularity as a big factor converting petrol stations to charging stations. Their is the risk of sparks around flammable vapors and besides, a gas station is built around cars coming through every few minutes. A charging station is going to more closely resemble a parking lot till someone figures out how to increase the charge rate a hundred-fold or so. I personally think charge time is going to drive us to fuel cells over Li-ion batteries. The batteries are already approaching the energy density of explosives and the political strings that must be pulled to maintain a supply of rare Earth elements required is not an easily soluble problem. Hydrogen and gas filling stations could reasonably share facilities.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you're actually interested in environmentalists views about Keystone XL, read the article at this link:

What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline?

How a single pipeline project became the epicenter of an enormous environmental, public health, and civil rights battle.

www.nrdc.org

Thanks for the link.


The Keystone XL pipeline extension, proposed by energy infrastructure company TC Energy (formerly TransCanada) in 2008, was designed to transport the planet’s dirtiest fossil fuel to market—fast. An expansion of the company’s existing Keystone Pipeline System, which has been operating since 2010 (and is already sending Canadian tar sands crude from Alberta to various processing hubs in the middle of the United States), it would dramatically increase capacity to process the 168 billion barrels of crude oil locked up under Canada’s boreal forest. To be precise, it would transport 830,000 barrels of Alberta tar sands oil per day to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Tar Sands are like strip mining.

So what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I personally think charge time is going to drive us to fuel cells over Li-ion batteries.

Fuel cells using what?

 

[danielpalos]

I'm glad to see you realize that the alternatives are better in some manner. But I don't see modularity as a big factor converting petrol stations to charging stations. Their is the risk of sparks around flammable vapors and besides, a gas station is built around cars coming through every few minutes. A charging station is going to more closely resemble a parking lot till someone figures out how to increase the charge rate a hundred-fold or so. I personally think charge time is going to drive us to fuel cells over Li-ion batteries. The batteries are already approaching the energy density of explosives and the political strings that must be pulled to maintain a supply of rare Earth elements required is not an easily soluble problem. Hydrogen and gas filling stations could reasonably share facilities.

I agree to disagree that returns to scale through upgrading infrastructure is not important.

 

[Crick]

I'm glad to see you realize that the alternatives are better in some manner. But I don't see modularity as a big factor converting petrol stations to charging stations. Their is the risk of sparks around flammable vapors and besides, a gas station is built around cars coming through every few minutes. A charging station is going to more closely resemble a parking lot till someone figures out how to increase the charge rate a hundred-fold or so. I personally think charge time is going to drive us to fuel cells over Li-ion batteries. The batteries are already approaching the energy density of explosives and the political strings that must be pulled to maintain a supply of rare Earth elements required is not an easily soluble problem. Hydrogen and gas filling stations could reasonably share facilities.

I agree to disagree that returns to scale through upgrading infrastructure is not important.

What you're suggesting is analogous to building a new network to support the distribution of coal gas. For short leg routes to support the limited distribution that will continue into the foreseeable future but, get a grip, man. Gasoline is on its way out. Petroleum's only value in the future will be as a materials resource and even that will be tempered as the world moves away from plastics as quickly as it can.

 

[Crick]

I personally think charge time is going to drive us to fuel cells over Li-ion batteries.

Fuel cells using what?

I've always like borax or the decahydrate version of sodium borate myself, but it doesn't seem to have caught on. Liquified hydrogen is a little volatile for public handling but there are a number of candidates.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've always like borax or the decahydrate version of sodium borate myself, but it doesn't seem to have caught on.

Where are you getting the hydrogen from?

 

[Crick]

If one were to use sodium borate, the hydrogen is already there and the stuff is dug up from huge deposits in the world's deserts. If you want to pump straight hydrogen into your car, you'll have to extract it from somewhere. One of the most frequently mentioned is to use solar energy to hydrolyze it from sea water. No such thing as a free lunch but some are cheaper than others.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If one were to use sodium borate, the hydrogen is already there and the stuff is dug up from huge deposits in the world's deserts.

You want to use it once and throw it away?

Not very green, are you?

One of the most frequently mentioned is to use solar energy to hydrolyze it from sea water.

You going to compress it? How much? Liquify it?

How many solar panels do you need to replace over 300 million gallons of gasoline a day?

 

[Crick]

Quite a few. How much CO2 will 300 million gallons of gasoline put into our atmosphere every day? Google tells me that each gallon burned produces 19.64 pounds of CO2. So you're talking about 5 billion, 892 million pounds (just under 3 Gigatonnes) of CO2 per day that would be eliminated by moving to electric vehicles powered by solar. That has value to me and to a lot of other people on this planet. It ought to have some value to you Todd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Quite a few. How much CO2 will 300 million gallons of gasoline put into our atmosphere every day? Google tells me that each gallon burned produces 19.64 pounds of CO2. So you're talking about 5 billion, 892 million pounds (just under 3 Gigatonnes) of CO2 per day that would be eliminated by moving to electric vehicles powered by solar. That has value to me and to a lot of other people on this planet. It ought to have some value to you Todd.

Quite a few.

Wow! Such precision.

Google tells me that each gallon burned produces 19.64 pounds of CO2.

How many pounds released by mining and transporting enough borate to release the energy equivalent of that gallon?

 

[Crick]

You asked a question that would require a lot of lookups, a lot of estimates and a lot of calculation when the answer I needed was sufficient to demonstrate the point you were trying to make. You knew that. We both know what rhetoric looks like Todd. We also both know that the argument that obtaining the material will use more energy than it will produce - tried repeatedly here for a number of different energy-related materials - doesn't work. That is something that gets checked so early on that you and I would never have heard of one that didn't pass it. I don't want to get on your case, but we both know there are a lot of people on this forum on the "Fossil fuels are great" side of the debate, who don't bring a great deal of intellect, knowledge or common sense to the table. You aren't one of them, but hanging out with them day to day, attempting to make valid arguments in the same direction as their unsupportable nonsense isn't doing you any good.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You asked a question that would require a lot of lookups, a lot of estimates and a lot of calculation when the answer I needed was sufficient to demonstrate the point you were trying to make. You knew that. We both know what rhetoric looks like Todd. We also both know that the argument that obtaining the material will use more energy than it will produce - tried repeatedly here for a number of different energy-related materials - doesn't work. That is something that gets checked so early on that you and I would never have heard of one that didn't pass it. I don't want to get on your case, but we both know there are a lot of people on this forum on the "Fossil fuels are great" side of the debate, who don't bring a great deal of intellect, knowledge or common sense to the table. You aren't one of them, but hanging out with them day to day, attempting to make valid arguments in the same direction as their unsupportable nonsense isn't doing you any good.

We also both know that the argument that obtaining the material will use more energy than it will produce - tried repeatedly here for a number of different energy-related materials - doesn't work.

It's your "green" idea to use sodium borate once and then throw it away.

You don't know very much about the idea, do you?

 

[Crick]

I never said to throw it away. But I don't know much about it. A couple articles. I have no idea, for instance, why it wasn't picked up. But we have several prototype fuel call vehicles on American roads, all using compressed hydrogen and with acceptable ranges. If you have a comment about fuel cell technology, how about making it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said to throw it away. But I don't know much about it. A couple articles. I have no idea, for instance, why it wasn't picked up. But we have several prototype fuel call vehicles on American roads, all using compressed hydrogen and with acceptable ranges. If you have a comment about fuel cell technology, how about making it?

I never said to throw it away.

Once you remove the hydrogen, what else are you going to do with it?

But I don't know much about it.

Obviously.

I have no idea, for instance, why it wasn't picked up.

Because it's a lot more expensive than using gasoline. A lot heavier with much less energy.
It would be like running your car on vinegar and baking soda, cute for a toy, useless for a tool.

But we have several prototype fuel call vehicles on American roads, all using compressed hydrogen and with acceptable ranges.

Awesome.

If you have a comment about fuel cell technology, how about making it?

Why do it? We have no source of hydrogen. Its explosive, difficult to store and doesn't
have much energy compared to gasoline. It's a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Crick]

I never said to throw it away. But I don't know much about it. A couple articles. I have no idea, for instance, why it wasn't picked up. But we have several prototype fuel call vehicles on American roads, all using compressed hydrogen and with acceptable ranges. If you have a comment about fuel cell technology, how about making it?

I never said to throw it away.

Once you remove the hydrogen, what else are you going to do with it?

But I don't know much about it.

Obviously.

I have no idea, for instance, why it wasn't picked up.

Because it's a lot more expensive than using gasoline. A lot heavier with much less energy.
It would be like running your car on vinegar and baking soda, cute for a toy, useless for a tool.

But we have several prototype fuel call vehicles on American roads, all using compressed hydrogen and with acceptable ranges.

Awesome.

If you have a comment about fuel cell technology, how about making it?

Why do it? We have no source of hydrogen. Its explosive, difficult to store and doesn't
have much energy compared to gasoline. It's a solution looking for a problem.

The borate can act as a simple carrier for the hydrogen. It can be returned. The advantage is that the borate is neither naturally volatile nor flammable. The drawback, of course, is that you have to put it through a reaction to get it out and to put it back in. But its one of many potential solutions.

As for energy content, it looks like you've forgotten your basic chemistry. Count the hydrogen atoms in this borax molecule: Na₂[B₄O₅(OH)₄]·8H₂O

We have an almost limitless supply of hydrogen and its combustion produces absolutely nothing but water.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said to throw it away. But I don't know much about it. A couple articles. I have no idea, for instance, why it wasn't picked up. But we have several prototype fuel call vehicles on American roads, all using compressed hydrogen and with acceptable ranges. If you have a comment about fuel cell technology, how about making it?

I never said to throw it away.

Once you remove the hydrogen, what else are you going to do with it?

But I don't know much about it.

Obviously.

I have no idea, for instance, why it wasn't picked up.

Because it's a lot more expensive than using gasoline. A lot heavier with much less energy.
It would be like running your car on vinegar and baking soda, cute for a toy, useless for a tool.

But we have several prototype fuel call vehicles on American roads, all using compressed hydrogen and with acceptable ranges.

Awesome.

If you have a comment about fuel cell technology, how about making it?

Why do it? We have no source of hydrogen. Its explosive, difficult to store and doesn't
have much energy compared to gasoline. It's a solution looking for a problem.

The borate can act as a simple carrier for the hydrogen. It can be returned. The advantage is that the borate is neither naturally volatile nor flammable. The drawback, of course, is that you have to put it through a reaction to get it out and to put it back in. But its one of many potential solutions.

As for energy content, it looks like you've forgotten your basic chemistry. Count the hydrogen atoms in this borax molecule: Na₂[B₄O₅(OH)₄]·8H₂O

We have an almost limitless supply of hydrogen and its combustion produces absolutely nothing but water.

The borate can act as a simple carrier for the hydrogen. It can be returned.

You didn't understand that way back when I asked where will you get the hydrogen.
When you were only using it once. Glad I could help you lessen your ignorance.

As for energy content, it looks like you've forgotten your basic chemistry. Count the hydrogen atoms in this borax molecule: Na₂[B₄O₅(OH)₄]·8H₂O

I've forgotten? LOL!

Looks like 20 hydrogens, do they all get released in your reaction?
So, 1 mole of borax weighs 381 grams and has 20 grams of hydrogen, some of it usable (20%?).

One mole of octane weighs 114 grams and has 18 grams of hydrogen, all of it usable.
And don't get me started on all the use you'll get out of the 96 grams of carbon.

How's that energy content looking?

 

[Crick]

Not bad at all considering the lack of carbon.