NDP will not stall transmountain

[hobbyguy]

las - fer cryin' out loud, the diversion away from the topic. Anyway, ICE engines took over because of energy density.

1 US gallon of gasoline contains about 33 kWh of electrical energy equivalent.

A 12 volt 225 AH premium lead acid battery contains about 3.3 kWh.

1 US gallon is roughly a milk jug in size and weight.

A 12V 225 AH lead acid battery is about the same size as milk jug.

Try picking up a 12V 225 AH lead acid battery - it's a LOT heavier.

Now think 10 of those to hold the same energy as a gallon of gasoline.

Now think, one gallon of gasoline won't get me very far. I want at least 10 gallons for practical range. So now you need 100 of those 12V 225 AH batteries.

For reference, a Tesla Li-ion battery weighs about 1,200 lbs. - and a Tesla gets about the same range as a 1920s Maxwell (predecessor to Chrysler) with 10 gallons of gasoline.

Now consider you live out on a farm in the 1920s. Chances are you didn't have electricity. So you can't even charge the batteries. You can, though, bring home a jerrycan of gasoline to refuel an ICE engine car or truck.

All of that is somewhat more complicated because of engine efficiencies, charging efficiencies and that technical ick - but you get the idea how practicality realities of energy density and other stuff favored the gasoline engine.



And all of that just proves that opponents of the TMX just haven't done enough research to truly understand the issues, and are probably relying on the likes of George Heyman or Tides or whatever blogster to do their thinking for them.

The TMX is a decent project - yes, one day petroleum products will be phased out - but until they are, projects like the TMX are needed. The risk is next to zero, and for practical purposes zero. It will bring jobs (most;y construction) and revenues to BC, and Alberta, and Canada. Look at the data, as the NEB and the feds did, and you will reach that conclusion - but you have to ignore the noise from the ideologue exploiters like George Heyman and the NDP.

[lasnomadas]

Geez, hob, you're wasting your time trying to explain all that 'technical ick' to me. I'm just a tree-huggin' environmentalist who wants to know why we need to export bitumen to China. Like I told your friend GB, there's gotta be a better way to make a buck.

[Smurf]

Believe me if there was someone would be doing it. The smart money goes where there's money to be made and it obviously is not the places you are thinking of. When something is out there it will happen. It is happening but it is a slow process as proven by the fact electric cars have been around for over 100 years and are still not feasible for everyday use by the average person. All of this will come in it's own time but till then I'm afraid till then we're stuck with petroleum.

[The Green Barbarian]

I'm glad you asked. First of all, we could stop importing trinkets from China in exchange for fossil fuels. Then we could start manufacturing value-added products rather than shipping raw logs out of the country. We could also put people to work in jobs that would benefit Canada instead of foreign countries. Canada is falling behind in technology, infrastructure upgrades, alternative renewable energy. We have to drop the 'hewers of wood and drawers of water' mentality and move into the 21st century.

ok well I will give you credit for answering, even though it is more utopian nonsense that is not practical. Once again you mention "alternative renewable energy". What is this? Wind and solar are horribly expensive and don't work without massive subsidization and therefore is not sustainable. I could see a lot of money being spent on nuclear reactors to unlock the massive uranium resources of Saskatchewan. That would make sense.

But you didn't really answer my question. You just parroted the completely impractical and nonsensical platform of the left. I was meaning more about if you are advocating for killing thousands of jobs in the oil sands and in pipeline construction, how do those jobs get replaced? Blathering on about building unsustainable solar and wind power factories is not an answer. Siemens is already shuttering their massively subsidized wind power plant in Ontario. They don't work. Oil has been on one mankind's greatest inventions, and has brought billions of people out of poverty. Until something like oil is discovered again, this is still the best energy source on earth to supply cheap power. Nuclear power could one day take on oil as a cheap source with new technologies, but the world has to stop listening to the panicky idiots and fear-mongering boneheads out there and move forward with nuclear power.

[Smurf]

Exactly! Instead of whining and crying about everything get busy and find viable working alternatives, because nothing is going to change until they exist. The forays into large solar and wind facilities are not working and thy are away to expensive as is shown by the fact many areas are taking away subsidies as has been shown in other threads. Saying there has to be something better is not a cure for anything. Something better has to exist.

[lasnomadas]

Good morning Smurf, I've just been reading an item regarding cell phones that reminded me of our debate about when we can expect alternative renewable energy to replace fossil fuels.

"It took 10 years to bring the portable cell phone to market. In 1983, Motorola introduced its 1.1-lb DynaTAC 8000X phone for consumer use with a hefty price tag of $3,995 (about $9,300 in today's dollars). It took seven years to reach one million cell phone subscribers." Now, just a few decades later, there are nearly 7 billion cell phone subscriptions on the planet, and the purchase cost is minimal.

My point is, if cell phone technology can make such fantastic leaps, why can't alternative renewable energy technology do the same? I maintain that it can, and does. That KM expansion will be obsolete even before the first drop of dilbit flows down the line.

[Veovis]

Geez, hob, you're wasting your time trying to explain all that 'technical ick' to me. I'm just a tree-huggin' environmentalist who wants to know why we need to export bitumen to China. Like I told your friend GB, there's gotta be a better way to make a buck.

Then find it, do it and pay 98% tax to government to create your better version of the world, but maybe until then, stop asking for everyone elses money for dreams that aren't realities.

Solar is a long way from replacing anything (and needs petroleum byproducts), wind is a known failure, hydroelectric gets protested almost as much as oil, so bring something new to market and fix the world.

[LordEd]

"It took 10 years to bring the portable cell phone to market. In 1983, Motorola introduced its 1.1-lb DynaTAC 8000X phone for consumer use with a hefty price tag of $3,995 (about $9,300 in today's dollars). It took seven years to reach one million cell phone subscribers." Now, just a few decades later, there are nearly 7 billion cell phone subscriptions on the planet, and the purchase cost is minimal.

My point is, if cell phone technology can make such fantastic leaps, why can't alternative renewable energy technology do the same? I maintain that it can, and does. That KM expansion will be obsolete even before the first drop of dilbit flows down the line.

Question: Why did they keep installing pay phones in 1983 when this new technology was available?

[lasnomadas]

You missed my point entirely, which was: If cell phones can replace pay phones in just a couple of decades, why can't renewable energy replace fossil fuels in less than the 100 years that you bitumen pipeline pushers keep insisting it will take?

[Smurf]

Because there is nothing even out there yet to replace many of the things that use petroleum and it's byproducts. Also remember we very probably would not even have cell phones today if it wasn't for petroleum. Please tell us what is out there or on the horizon that is going to replace petroleum. Most of if not all of the alternative energies you talk about require petroleum to be produced and/or operated.

[lesliepaul]

Just waiting to see if someone pipes up about "hemp" again...........to pave roads, build cars and on and on and on..............

How somebody can sit around all day, everyday and their sole existence appears to be changing something that will not, make that "cannot" be changed in our lifetime or our children's. Someday in a distant century who knows what the future holds. It appears that these fanatics will grasp onto anything that is said today or comes on the scene as the latest and greatest thing to shift us........make that shift the world, away from "Black Gold". I wonder how many of the tree-hugging crowd here have financially invested some life-savings into what they so believe in. I am willing to bet that very few of them are willing to take the chance at this time and have portfolios that INCLUDE oil in some form.........to better their lives of course.

[Smurf]

Actually lesliepaul I'll bet many of them have or will have investments and pensions that are tied to the petroleum industry
( mine are). Possibly even jobs that are tied to it. Possibly plumbers who use many pipes made with petroleum products. Myself an electrician using cables, breakers and soooo much more that are made with petroleum products. Also cities, our homes and businesses whose water and sewer systems use piping etc made with petroleum products. I am willing to bet there is not a person who is not touched by it in some way and a great many who like myself are or were totally involved with it without even actually thinking about it. Countries that survive on it. It is just away to huge to disappear in a short length of time. It is an absolute joke to try and compare it to telephones.

[lasnomadas]

It's an even bigger joke to ignore what most environmentalist are trying to tell you. Nobody's proposing an end to petroleum products. It would be foolish to expect all conventional oil production to stop. What I (and others) are proposing is an end to unconventional oil production, fracking, mining, all methods of production that are destructive to our land, air, and most importantly, water.

Climate change is happening whether you believe it or not. We see it accelerate more and more each year----devastating storms, floods, droughts, fires. The only people who refuse to acknowledge it are those who haven't been personally affected, and those people are finding themselves more and more in the minority.

So let's not pretend that we can't replace fossil fuels with renewable energy for the biggest polluters on the planet----transportation, heating, air-conditioning, etc. Let's discuss this rationally, rather than emotionally.

[lesliepaul]

Actually lesliepaul I'll bet many of them have or will have investments and pensions that are tied to the petroleum industry
( mine are). Possibly even jobs that are tied to it. Possibly plumbers who use many pipes made with petroleum products. Myself an electrician using cables, breakers and soooo much more that are made with petroleum products. Also cities, our homes and businesses whose water and sewer systems use piping etc made with petroleum products. I am willing to bet there is not a person who is not touched by it in some way and a great many who like myself are or were totally involved with it without even actually thinking about it. Countries that survive on it. It is just away to huge to disappear in a short length of time. It is an absolute joke to try and compare it to telephones.

Thank god the majority of us have a reasoning ability to see everything in the big picture. The hypocritical zealots out there will NEVER, EVER open their minds to understand how misled they are on so many levels. 20 years ago there was next to no residential recycling...........today in ours and many parts of the world, almost every house has a recycling bin. To the zealots this change for the good doesn't even register with them. Vehicles in the 80's ran cleaner than the 70's, the 90's cleaner than the 80's, 2000's cleaner than the 90's. 2010's cleaner than the 2000's...........and to the zealots these improvements again are given ZERO credit. The world has changed in the right direction on many fronts but again these zealots never see it and only know how to ask for the impossible..........AND RIGHT NOW!

[LordEd]

You missed my point entirely, which was: If cell phones can replace pay phones in just a couple of decades, why can't renewable energy replace fossil fuels in less than the 100 years that you bitumen pipeline pushers keep insisting it will take?

Maybe it can somehow , but you miss the point that until renewable energy is cost effective and easy to adopt, other current methods are still needed to be built to meet demand.