Energy Transfer Partners plans to double the amount of oil running through its Dakota Access Pipeline across North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. Doubling the pipeline’s capacity requires adding pumps and pump stations (like the future station approved near Harrisburg) and increasing the pressure at which the pipeline operates.
More moving parts and more force applied to the same amount of buried steel means more risk of something going wrong, right?
Of course not, ETP tells the North Dakota Public Service Commission:
Dakota Access pipeline officials argued Wednesday that the company’s proposal to double the line’s capacity does not increase the potential of a failure, a claim that has been long dismissed by opponents of the idea.
…Chuck Frey, a vice president of engineering for Energy Transfer, told North Dakota regulators the pipeline’s expansion “does not increase the risk” of a spill.
“I assure the commission we plan to cut no corners on this work,” Frey said [James MacPherson, “Company: Dakota Access Expansion Doesn’t Increase Risk,” AP via U.S. News and World Report, 2019.11.13].
Frey’s statement about no increased risk doesn’t make mechanical of mathematical sense. One of his own VPs seemed to contradict that claim by noting the extra precautions the company is promising to take:
Standing Rock attorney Timothy Purdon grilled Energy Partners officials over their plan. He also questioned them about the dozen leaks — totaling about 6,000 gallons (22,711 liters) — along the line that the company has reported since the line went into service.
Todd Stamm, the company’s vice president of liquid pipeline operations, said the leaks occurred on facilities related to the pipeline, but not on the line itself. He said the company plans to use additional emergency response equipment and at least one employee to monitor the North Dakota site [MacPherson, 2019.11.13].
Dakota Access has had leaks at pumping stations. ETP wants to build more pumping stations. More pumping stations means more risk of a leak. And if more oil is flowing through the pipeline, then more oil will spurt out of the pipeline when it leaks.
One can make a case that we need to keep fossil fuels flowing to sustain our economy as we transition to cleaner, non-planet-destroying energy. I would just like that case to be made without Big Oil lying about the laws of physics and engineering.
Do the laws of physics cease to exist in wingnut fever dreams? Why yes, they sure do.
Demand Beskar steel!
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Mandalorian_iron
Cory,
More solar cells mean more solar cells will eventually wind up in the landfill. But we keep putting solar cells on houses and in solar farms for some reason.
Both solar farms and pipeline pumping stations share the following in common: There is a demand and it is being filled.
I agree that the pipeline demand should be satisfied by reducing leaks and preventing the distribution of that leaked oil into water sources. Photovoltaics should be installed without having to overwhelm the landfill (which would cause its own set of water issues in the long term).
Is there any sense of that any of the involved states will say No. You can’t do that in our state. Of course ND won’t. They’re all in on oil.
It takes real political courage to speak up against energy sources that melt the planet when your constituents earn their living from it.
In Minnesota that conflict arises in the northeast where the iron mines lead the economy. Of course the GOP has no problem with destroying the planet. Apparently they care not at all for their children and grandchildren or the rest of the human race.
Do Not Trust Anyone who doesn’t understand or value the Laws of Physics.
Why are there valves on natural gas lines?
Why don’t you run Tires with recommended 35 # psi at 70# psi?
Why are compressed gas cylinders filled to a limited psi and not double loaded ?
Who is dumber they for recommending
Or if we accept what they say?
The arguments about leaks always miss the following point. If there is no demand for the oil, then they lose money trying to transport it. So if you drive more electric cars (for example), there will be less demand for global oil. If there is no buyer, there is no profit.
You will have to figure out how to generate that extra electricity and provide the requisite energy storage capacity though. Having that electricity coming from coal is probably not a great trade-off.
Or you do some form of carbon capture to go along with your fossil fuel consumption.
With regard to doubling the pressure, that will mean that timelines for maintenance and/or replacement will need to change, and/or you pay more for better components that are more robust. Those costs have to be considered.
Will more solar cells in the landfill have as much impact on climate change as more oil being burned?
I don’t miss the point that we have to cut demand for oil. But the fact that lots of people want to burn oil does not excuse ETP’s lying about the fact that increasing moving parts and operating pressure on the Dakota Access pipeline means an increased risk of environmental damage.
It’s too bad Robert wasn’t around in the 1850s to demand environmental perfection from the folks who were starting to drill for and refine oil as a fuel source, or throughout the 20th century when a combination of social and policy factors led to the demise of streetcars and other mass transit.
Solar currently has an indirect carbon impact, because we burn natural gas to make up for it when demand exceeds supply. It has a direct impact in that we also consume natural gas and coal in the production of said solar cells, and use various chemicals in the processing. The mining required for the input to the solar life cycle also has its own set of environmental impacts and water issues.
At the end of the day, we are not worrying about how better or worse those impacts are….we are pushing ahead regardless. You would think that the environmentalist in all of us would want to reduce potential impacts before solar and wind and batteries are the majority of our energy, not after.
Once again, I am not saying don’t do solar. I am saying do not do solar the wrong way. Don’t emit carbon (or fail to capture carbon) in the backup of solar energy, and take care of these other environmental impacts.
If you want to replace fossil fuels with something better, please make things better.
Solar panels can be and are disposed of by recycle and other means.
“Solar energy is inexpensive and environmentally friendly – until your solar panels have reached the end of their lifetime. … Heavy metals like cadmium and lead are found in solar cells, which can harm the natural environment if they are not recycled or disposed of properly.”
So there ya go, we can live with renewable energy. We cannot live with fossil fuel burning. Fossil fuel dependency is like taking heroin, it might get you high, but then you die a most horrific death. We need to pull that dirty oil needle out of our arms and demand better.
Cory, if you remove the demand, any such statements or actions are rendered moot.
But still, that is not enough for us to stop driving with fossil fuels and use alternative fuels. Nor to consider what is necessary to generate the energy that we will use for transportation without fossil fuels.
Here is a question with no real good answer….Would you rather increase the pressure to deliver more oil and spend more money on maintenance and repair, or build more pipelines to deliver the oil that people want at a lower pressure?
Heavy metals are environmentally friendly?
And our method of isolation for heavy metals is sending the solar cells to the dump?
Sending panels to the dump is what chumps do. Real business folks recycle for the money involved as it is big business and will continue to grow. Ask a recycle business how there business is, it might look like junk, but there is big money in it.
“Besides environmental protection, recycling solar panels will be economically impactful as well. Some of the rare elements in photovoltaic (PV) cells like gallium and indium are being depleted from the environment over time. If we were able to recover those elements, we can conserve the limited amount available on earth and continue to use them for solar panels and other products. Furthermore, a 2016 study by the International Renewable Agency (IRENA) estimated that $15 billion could be recovered from recycling solar modules by the year 2050.”
Now, how many billion can be recovered from nuke waste? Natta, that poison just sits there and stay dangerous for a billion years.
Trash Can uses various chemicals and mucho heat to push dilbit through their leaky pipelines. But, we aren’t allowed to know what those chemicals, or the ones used in fracking are because they are trade secrets.
M y best guess would be moar chemicals are used to push dilbit or frack oil for one day than are used in making all the solar panels in one day. And I’d bet it isn’t even close comparison.
We should be recycling. We should be isolating heavy metals with no further commercial use. That is true for solar and for nuclear.
More than 90% of the energy in the original nuclear fuel still remains in the waste. All of those rare earth elements you like for solar, wind, and batteries? They are found in nuclear waste, and the nuclear reactor is the only place they are being generated anew on the planet. They are mixed in with everything else, so extracting them is not be profitable at this time because other than France we are not really recycling nuclear fuel today.
Oil is energy dense. Solar is not. So to compare you need to include the footprint required to deliver the same energy, both with direct and indirect impacts.
Maybe one day folks here will see the merit of nuclear and solar working together to deliver our energy and to work on common recycling issues together. But that day is apparently not today.
Cold Fusion is the newest old thing
Mike said, “My best guess would be moar chemicals are used to push dilbit or frack oil for one day than are used in making all the solar panels in one day. And I’d bet it isn’t even close comparison.”
Hadn’t thought about that. Great point.
Here’s our energy source of the future. It’s not very cost effective yet, several trillion dollars per ounce. 😁
is.gd/hfKGAo
2700 trillion per gram. Pocket change, Debbo.
Doc, your assumptions are not meritorious. Anyone that says “said solar panels” is full of it :)
Hiway 34 across Iowa has ancient historic picturesque white farmhouses isolated for miles but across the road is this: the future NOW: a beautiful solar panel field in full bloom. Doc we get it. Quit being the buzz kill for renewables. Join us.
We can eat popcorn and watch the Chernobyl documentary together.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AnaJvPRkMTc&feature=youtu.be
Hear, hear Leslie.
Renewables should not follow the game plan of fossil fuels with regard to waste management. Just because fossil fuel consumption has distributed heavy metals into the environment does not mean that renewables can do so as well. That means recycling or downcycling, if not isolating the worst heavy metals and chemicals.
Will you and Porter stipulate here and now, that by not addressing the life cycle issues of solar energy that solar is not sustainable?
Do you believe it is worth it to build out solar without being sustainable?
We should be recycling nuclear waste, but it is being isolated. We should be recycling solar, but we are not, and we are not isolating those wastes from the biosphere.
Solar also does nothing to displace oil from the pipeline unless that energy is being used for transportation. Unless you are recharging your electric car at home in part from solar, the best you can probably do is use solar to power biofuel production.
As we build more solar, it is going to come with more natural gas. Right now this combo (and wind) are displacing coal. But we are going to need more electricity with electric cars. This is my other usual objection to how we are doing things with solar. While it will take longer for our carbon to double with solar + gas instead of coal, it will eventually double.
The environment is not going to care how long it took to melt the ice caps once they are gone.
Nuclear + renewables!
Moreover, I feel like I have to say this once again, because it appears not to be getting through.
I am not against solar. Making the most of what we have available to us is worthwhile to pursue. I am against how solar is currently being implemented, as the end result should be a reduction in carbon and a reduced environmental footprint.
Cold Fusion is the answer. The players are already set and there big names.
“n Japan, presently the leading nation in this field, the sponsors include Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Mitsubishi Estate Company, Toyota, Nissan, Tanaka Precious Metals and the Miura Corporation, a major producer of heating equipment.
From the US side Google has become active, sponsoring a multi-university study of cold fusion and reportedly working to recruit promising young scientists to cold fusion research.
Another prominent US investor is Tom Darden (Cherokee Investment Partners, Industrial Heat). It is an open secret, I am told, that Bill Gates, in addition to his work in other aspects of futuristic nuclear technology, is also engaged in this area.
The wave of interest in cold fusion was evident behind the scenes at the 22nd International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (abbreviated ICCF-22) in Assisi, Italy, earlier this year.”
McTag … You’re sounding a bit kooky. We all know what you think. You’ve said it over and over again. You’ve apparently set your job as telling others what to do. What gives you that right? Answer this or be silent. What are you doing to help besides talk?
Good news. 23 states, including Minnesota, have joined California in challenging Polluting Pukeface’s desire to make climate change worse by lifting mpg standards!
is.gd/ekGkNE
Spot on Porter, doc should contact Goggle, for one, as they have money for research…if that was his intention to actually do something. Money from a benefactor should be a yuuuuuge incentive to do something.
Jerry, I don’t think that is cold fusion…..people do want regular fusion to work though.
Porter, Isn’t there somebody in DC that calls people names to distract people from the truth? I would just answer whether solar is currently sustainable in its life cycle today, but you did not address that one way or the other in your reply.
My work with solar energy has to do with the irradiation of solar panels to test their robustness for use in space, so I am using nuclear science in solar energy studies. We are also doing a pilot study right now to examine whether room temperature is enough to re-jigger the silicon atoms back into place after an irradiation to see if the efficiency of a solar cell recovers. Part of my work also deals with the simulation of a detector that would measure fusion processes occurring in the Sun while closer to the Sun…and that would likely be powered by solar (but be hit with the solar wind). So I think I am doing more than the average bear in this regard.
Debbo….Regardless of the lawsuits, we can all choose more efficient vehicles. That does help to reduce the demand for fossil fuels.
Yes. Solar is currently sustainable in its life cycle today.
Thanks for a rundown of your projects. Go ahead and try to persuade me that nuclear reactors are beneficial to humans, if that’s what you need to do. Who knows, something new could be discovered.
Of course doc, how silly of me to think that these wealthy companies, with a whole bunch of eggheads, would know more about cold fusion than you. Cold fusion is the safest form of providing the energy that we need in addition to the solar and wind. But I digress, you’re clearly more intelligent than the second graders at Google and Miura, so do carry on.
Porter,
We will have to disagree about the sustainability. Take that solar farm for example that leslie highlighted.
Where are those solar panels going after they are no longer efficient enough? Who knows.
Are we emitting carbon to back them up? Yes. This is primarily why nuclear needs to be used more to generate the energy we need. Just building more solar will not work. Other things can be integrated as they mature, such as energy storage.
When the solar panels are replaced several times over the next 50 years, will new mining be necessary to replace them? Yes.
The life cycle is not sustainable today. If you run out of the critical elements, you cannot make the solar panels. There are environmental impacts that in my opinion are not being dealt with. I think they are recognized, but they would add cost…this will not change unless we demand it.
You need to reduce the mining required with recycling. Nuclear and solar could be working together in this regard, and some of the good elements that solar and energy storage need are in nuclear waste today….if we recycled things. But unscrambling an egg is not necessarily easy to do. It will take some effort.
Once again, Europe brings the brains to solve the recycle of solar panels that have out lived their intended use. Why do we suck so badly when it comes to this. Pretty simple, big oil, big nukes and big coal want to make this as difficult as possible.
“Veolia
Unlike the U.S., Europe has a developed solar market. Due to government regulations, European solar panel owners must recycle their panels once they are done using them. This has created a market for panel recyclers, one of which is Veolia.
Veolia partners with the non-profit PV Cycle in Europe to collect and recycle solar panels. They opened their first recycling plant in 2018, where robots separate glass, silicon, plastics, and metals from solar panels.”
We taxpayers subsidize oil, nuke and coal, but not so much renewable energy. Oh we do somewhat, but not to the extent of big oil or big nukes as an example.
Thanks, Doc. Thanks for the idea. I’m reading an article about bitcoin mining in Iceland and it came to me. I’m going to make a lot of money off you …
Great, I hope you make enough to fund my research so you can make even more money ;^).
Renewables are being subsidized. The subsidies are lower in total, but not in the cost per kilowatt-hour….and we are on track to make more renewable energy. One can probably make the case that all of these items need some type of subsidy to allow for cash flow when it is needed, but we also need to foster innovation at the same time.
Nuclear must isolate its waste, so that is mandated. I think at the end of the day we will have some mandates for solar and wind recycling or waste management….I would just like to have that in place prior to the significant expansion, not afterwards. Otherwise, we are replacing one problem with a different problem.
Funding your research would be counter productive to America. As a Republican, living under Trump’s rules you must understand his premise. “It’s not exploitation if the sucker doesn’t realize what’s happening to him.”
Might take some work to get the Google boys to help fund your research doc, much easier to just bark than to pull the sled.
Take the 80,000 feet from the 40,000 workers that EB5 Rounds said would work on the pipe line, and use them to hold the pipe in place. Put these 40.000 workers arm in arm across the pipeline corridor.
“On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, as well as 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day posted profiles of U.S. Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, who clearly has been taking hairstyle tips from Donald Trump on how to rock a comb over. Rounds, a former governor of South Dakota, once tried to outlaw all abortion in his state, and was turned back by the courts for it being a violation of Roe vs. Wade. He also insisted the Keystone Pipeline would create 40,000 new jobs in South Dakota alone, which was a gross exaggeration over four times the amount the company who would have owned the pipeline claimed there would be (It was more like 50, in reality). https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/11/16/1899900/-Crazy-Stupid-Republican-of-the-Day-Mike-Rounds-2019-Update?utm_campaign=recent
A future with clean air and clean water would be counterproductive to America? You are funny Porter, I will give you that. By the way, many Democrats and Independents like nuclear power for its clean energy and its high-paying jobs, just not as many on this particular echo chamber.
Counting jobs is also a funny business, but usually these kinds of estimates use an impact factor, and they want to count all the jobs indirectly resulting from the economic development.
For example, everybody working on the pipeline goes to the diner for a piece of pie every day. The workers at the diner contribute in some fashion to those indirect totals. Maybe they include jobs resulting from the spending of state taxes that are accrued…I do not know. So the question really is what is being included in the spreadsheet.
Many companies support Cold Fusion instead of the dangerous nukes. Get on board to change the world instead of trying to destroy it. BTW, where I buy my pie is a place that is run by one woman. One helluva a pie maker too. I will ask her, but it is doubtful she has 39,949 fellow pie makers in South Dakota. She would then ask me if I was high, which is probably a good question for someone who comes up with that malarkey.
Jerry!! Put that pie away unless you brought enough for the whole class. 🍓 🍎 🍑 🍒 ツ
With regard to “cold fusion”, please develop a prototype, operate the prototype for a year, and get back to us with an assessment of its safety and environmental impacts. Then we may think about how safe or unsafe it is.
Benchtop chemistry or physics does not have the same impacts as a commercial facility. While success at the benchtop level is necessary for such development to occur, I don’t know if that hurdle has been surpassed yet.
Success means generating more energy out than you have to put into the process, and having the reaction sustain itself for a few hours in a controlled fashion. So I don’t think “success” has been achieved yet.
But as with hemp, it is a free country. So if you want to lose your own money, go right ahead.
A prototype, how about this? Part 2 of 3 parts by Jonathan Tennenbaum
“In my view Japan – without question the world leader today when it comes to experimental research in this field – has produced the most compelling demonstrations of the existence and reproducibility of cold fusion.
Japan owes its leading position in large measure to consistent institutional and industrial support and a systematic, step-by-step approach emphasizing the development of advanced materials for cold fusion devices. Cold fusion research lies at the intersection of nuclear physics and materials science, and Japan’s successes in cold fusion would be impossible without a strong industrial base in the fields of nanomaterials and nanotechnology.” Part 2 on Cold Fusion by Jonathan Tennenbaum
Look that feller up doc, pretty cool Oh, and nano nano to you sir. Speaking of cool, Cold Fusion
More from the same article, ya gotta love this doc, it’s physics and science.
“A watershed was reached two years ago with the completion of a multi-institutional project sponsored by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), one of the largest public funding agencies in Japan, working under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. The project involved a collaboration among Kyushu University, Tohoku University, Nagoya University, Nissan Motor Co and Technova (a technology firm in which Toyota Motor Corp is a principal shareholder).
The series of 16 collaborative experiments aimed to clarify the nature of “the anomalous heat generation phenomena” in hydrogen-saturated metals, and to reproduce these phenomena in a consistent manner. For this purpose the collaborative effort focused on a technology that Japanese scientists have brought to a high level of maturity: gas loading of specially-prepared “nano-structured materials.” Part 2 Jonathan Tennenbaum
Here’s the link for Part 2 and you can find Part 1 information there as well. https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/11/article/cold-fusion-japan-takes-the-lead/
The key is funding, as always. State sponsored is great, but as you can see, private industry is kicking in big time, with some deep pockets.
Fusion means that nuclear particles are being emitted. Every fusion in the sun comes with the emission of neutrinos, if not the production of elements that are heavier than the constituent molecules. That is what I am looking for with regard to “fusion”.
Could be that “cold fusion” is really more of a chemical process, not nuclear in nature. One could still have exothermic reactions (that release instead of absorb heat), but not at the level of a nuclear process. Nuclear processes release millions of electron-Volts of energy per reaction. Chemical processes release 1-20 electron-Volts per reaction.
I would need to see those kind of numbers, Jerry. If it is not millions of electron-Volts per process….including all of the heat that is released…it ain’t nuclear. Having financial support is great, but having that data is better. Japan is not implementing cold fusion into its energy portfolio. They may turn on some of the nuclear reactors they turned off in order to prevent carbon emissions though.
They should be able to do something on the order of mass spectroscopy to show that there are heavier atoms being generated as well due to the process.
Canadian First People have an answer to the hegemony of pipelines. Women are building tiny homes on wheels and placing them strategically.
is.gd/3WdEam No paywall and worth your time.
In the news today from Democracy Now!:
“North Dakota’s Department of Environmental Quality admitted Wednesday that the amount of land fouled by an oil spill from the Keystone pipeline last month is nearly 10 times greater than initially reported. The company operating Keystone, TC Energy Corp. — formerly known as TransCanada — says over 380,000 gallons of crude oil spilled in a rural wetland after the pipeline ruptured on October 29. TC Energy is seeking approval to restart oil flow through the pipeline as early as Sunday.”
_____________________________
So TC lied bigly. Are we surprised? We are not.
Never, never, NEVER trust big business. Ever.
Yes, the spill is larger than they thought it was. Yes, it would be better not to have any spills in the first place. Better still, it would be better to not use fossil fuels at all —which would mean electric cars, biofuels, or fuel cells at the moment. Nevertheless, the issue at hand is clean water.
Have water supplies been impacted? If they keep getting zero for additional petrochemical signatures in bodies of water (above or below ground), wouldn’t that mean that their containment measures are working?
The reason I say “additional” is that it is likely that the burning of coal and of gasoline have left various signatures in the environment already. You need to find something above and beyond the current background levels of said chemicals, which means a real thorough understanding of the background throughout the course of a year.
The hard truth that nobody wants to deal with is that we will blow by any metric for reducing our carbon emissions by 2050. We may hit 500 ppm without breaking a sweat. And burning evermore natural gas with our renewables is not helping.
We refuse to acknowledge that the world is growing, and we ignore their desire for our modern technologies. We refuse to do the hard work that is necessary to generate the amount of electricity to power those technologies without emitting carbon, if not mine or recycle the critical elements for batteries without emitting carbon.
At the end of the day, I believe that we will need to power the removal of carbon from the atmosphere, and we should do that in particular without releasing more carbon.
“Have water supplies have been impacted? If they keep getting zero for additional petrochemical signatures in bodies of water (above or below ground), wouldn’t that mean that their containment measures are working?”
Depends on who “they” are that’s doing the testing. Apparently the state of ND and TC are fine with lying about it.
I am not hardline anti-nuclear, as I’ve said before. I do tire of the endless arguments about it.
Less consumerism is mandatory. Major changes in lifestyles is mandatory.
Less consumerism is not mandatory. But then what becomes mandatory is generating the energy we use as consumers without emitting carbon.
There are alternatives to using more nuclear. I just do not think they are viable long-term. Ultimately it boils down to math….political math or carbon math.
Renewables without any nuclear means using energy only when it is available (because energy storage is not ready). Or it means living with a growing amount of carbon from natural gas (because carbon capture is not ready).
The former will lead to the loss of elections, and the latter will not solve climate change.
Former Texas governor “Good Hair” Perry is rejoing ETP pipeline company after a stint as suckretary of energy.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/476785-rick-perry-rejoins-pipeline-company
Still got his “smart glasses” too?