Pipeline Opposition Getting Ridiculous

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

"“Let’s hope that this black snake that they’re threatening to pass through our lands to kill our mother, to kill our waters, is stopped,” Fazio concluded at the end of her speech."

The black snake in question is--you guessed it!--Trans Mountain. It is already there, passing through their lands and has been there for quite a while. Sometimes people's tendency to go into full autopilot-non-thinking mode scares me, honestly. And that black snake trope got old the moment it was first used.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

I guess some of these folks in the Northern regions want to live without hydrocarbons, and return to the days of yore, with horse and buggy and burning wood and coal to stay warm during the winter.

Trying to reason with fanatics can be frustrating.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

I don't think they do. I don't even think they realize how tough life can be without hydrocarbons. But it's fashionable to curse pipelines--oil, mind you, not gas--and it gets you media attention.

[Rodent + 1,424]

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I guess some of these folks in the Northern regions want to live without hydrocarbons, and return to the days of yore, with horse and buggy and burning wood and coal to stay warm during the winter.

Trying to reason with fanatics can be frustrating.

Burning wood is my main source of heat, although my motives for doing so are purely economic--it's free, whereas propane is expensive.  

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Rodent said:

Burning wood is my main source of heat, although my motives for doing so are purely economic--it's free, whereas propane is expensive.  

My parents still use a wood burning stove to heat the farmhouse during the winter, but also have a backup furnace with heavy heating oil for when it gets seriously cold.  They also own part of a forest, and can chop their own trees.

But what about urban dwellers?  Would a city with half a million houses and apartments in Canada be able to heat their homes using wood stoves?  The forests near cities would disappear pretty darn quick.  Coal takes less space, but is dirtier than burning wood. Not realistic these days.

[Rodent + 1,424]

5 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

My parents still use a wood burning stove to heat the farmhouse during the winter, but also have a backup furnace with heavy heating oil for when it gets seriously cold.  They also own part of a forest, and can chop their own trees.

We also have propane backup for the sub-zero temperatures. We don't chop down trees, we simply chop up ones that have fallen. If we drive by someone's house and they have a tree down, we kindly offer to chop it up and take it away. Most people appreciate the free tree removal service, and we appreciate the free wood. 

I agree this is not a practical solution for everyone. You have to have access to forested areas, of which we have an abundance of here.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Most of the trees my parents chop up with chainsaws are dead or dying trees.  Sustainable pruning of the small forest, if that makes sense.

When we were little kids, our family planted 20,000 pine tree saplings in the swamp near the river that cuts through the edge of the farmland.  The government was selling the saplings for a penny and a half apiece.  This was in the late 60's and early 70s.  We planted a few thousand trees a year.

It's no longer a swamp, some of the pine trees are 40 feet tall or more, lots of wildlife live in what used to be a muddy swamp.  Deer, fox, rabbits, raccoons, squirrels, etc.  All the tree roots hold the formerly swampy earth together.

Again, this type of woodland access for chopping down old trees is simply not available in urban areas.

[JunoTen + 118]

If oil demand peaks in the early 2020s (as it will probably do), then the pipeline will be a stranded asset. The people that are against it have strong arguments. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

  Coal takes less space, but is dirtier than burning wood. Not realistic these days.

Coal is not realistic in a dense urban environment, however "hard coal," i.e. anthracite, burns a lot cleaner than wood. Anthracite is perhaps 50% carbon; soft coal, or bituminous, is more like 30%.  Wood burns with lots of particulate matter thrown off, and is a large creator of smog, and causes asthma. The burning of wood for heat in the valleys of Northern New England is a serious health problem in winter, as you do not get enough wind to push the smog out. 

Is there an obvious solution?  Yup, natural gas, but there are no pipelines for that up there. Propane, sure, but that is expensive, and sucks up disposable income of already poor people. The wood pellet stove seems to be the compromise choice where that society is now headed.  Burns a lot cleaner than bulk firewood, but yes, you do have to pay for it!  (Maine now subsidizes the production of wood pellets.)  Bagged anthracite mined in New York State is now running at $150/ton retail.  And that is probably the cheapest and gets you the most heat for the volume (but don't tell that to the carbon-tax fanatics!)  Me, I like electric resistance heating, which you can buy wholesale for 6 cents a kwh from or in Quebec. They make the stuff from rain.  A chacun son gout!

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

19 hours ago, JunoTen said:

If oil demand peaks in the early 2020s (as it will probably do), then the pipeline will be a stranded asset. The people that are against it have strong arguments. 

That's a very big "if." And no, the ones like the one I've quoted above do not have strong arguments.They should at least have the decency to check their facts before they start to wax lyrical about nature. Peak oil is indeed the only rational argument against more infrastructure but it does not get mentioned very often precisely because of the "if". Some of us still remember the last peak oil scare-mongering campaign.

Personally, I'd be happy to satisfy all my energy needs with a solar roof. The problem is, it's far from affordable as of yet and I'm not sure if it would be enough in winter.

[JunoTen + 118]

7 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

That's a very big "if." And no, the ones like the one I've quoted above do not have strong arguments.They should at least have the decency to check their facts before they start to wax lyrical about nature. Peak oil is indeed the only rational argument against more infrastructure but it does not get mentioned very often precisely because of the "if". Some of us still remember the last peak oil scare-mongering campaign.

Personally, I'd be happy to satisfy all my energy needs with a solar roof. The problem is, it's far from affordable as of yet and I'm not sure if it would be enough in winter.

That "if" is not so big, as more and more analysts predict peak oil by 2030 or before, due to the rise of electric and autonomous vehicles. It is a serious threat to the viability of the pipeline, which would have to be dismantled and recycled. There will probably be more talks about peak oil demand in the media as China rises it EVs quotas and Didi, Uber, Waymo, Lyft, GM and other carmakers advance their plans of putting a fleet of electric autonomous vehicles on the roads.

I don't know if a solar roof can satisfy all of your energy needs, but I suggest  you get a diagnosis of your home by a professional, maybe it is possible with a home battery.

Edited May 29, 2018 by JunoTen

[xposure + 13]

2 minutes ago, JunoTen said:

That "if" is not so big, as more and more analysts predict peak oil by 2030 or before, due to the rise of electric and autonomous vehicles. It is a serious threat to the viability of the pipeline, which would have to be dismantled and recycled. There will probably more about peak oil demand in the media as China rises it EVs quotas and Didi, Uber, Waymo, Lyft, GM and other carmakers advance their plans of putting a fleet of electric autonomous vehicles on the roads.

I don't know if a solar roof can satisfy all of your energy needs, but I suggest  you get a diagnosis of your home by a professional, maybe it is possible with a home battery.

Peak oil was supposed to be in the 1990s, then 2000s, then 2010. Nobody can predict it. We will know when peak oil is after it has passed.

[JunoTen + 118]

1 minute ago, xposure said:

Peak oil was supposed to be in the 1990s, then 2000s, then 2010. Nobody can predict it. We will know when peak oil is after it has passed.

That was peak oil supply, I'm talking about peak oil demand. We will know soon enough if electric and autonomous vehicles reduce oil demand as some analysts predict.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

I suspect a lot of analysts simply exaggerate the rate of EV adoption, which is why I'm skeptical about the peak oil demand forecasts. Look at Norway: it's #1 in EGV adoption and still its oil demand continued to rise along with EV adoption, only beginning to fall last year. 

Thanks for the advice, @JunoTen, this could be worth a try.

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

11 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

I suspect a lot of analysts simply exaggerate the rate of EV adoption, which is why I'm skeptical about the peak oil demand forecasts. Look at Norway: it's #1 in EGV adoption and still its oil demand continued to rise along with EV adoption, only beginning to fall last year. 

Thanks for the advice, @JunoTen, this could be worth a try.

 

I'm also skeptical about the forecasts on the rate of EV adoption...

... You think they exaggerate the rate of EV adoption... I think they underestimate the rate EV of adoption.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

That's also a possibility, certainly. But the optimist camp seems to me more populous. I may be wrong, certainly. We'll find out which camp was closer to the truth in, what, a few years, maybe? 

[JunoTen + 118]

2 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

I suspect a lot of analysts simply exaggerate the rate of EV adoption, which is why I'm skeptical about the peak oil demand forecasts. Look at Norway: it's #1 in EGV adoption and still its oil demand continued to rise along with EV adoption, only beginning to fall last year. 

Thanks for the advice, @JunoTen, this could be worth a try.

You're welcome.

We'll know soon enough if peak oil demand will happen because of electric and autonomous vehicles or not, let's just wait for the approval of states and the launch of robo-taxi services, it won't be long now !

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Regarding those who do not have access to free wood or choose to  use wood pellets and avoid the work:

Wood pellets are a big deal, and useable in many suburban areas. Growth is steady. See https://www.pellet.org/wpac-news/global-pellet-market-outlook-in-2017

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

"Greenpeace Australia has launched a bizarre demonstration outside a Sydney bank in protest of tar sands pipelines - in the United States. Up to 20 activists dressed in hi-vis vests laid down a 30-metre pipeline outside Citibank's Park Street headquarters on Tuesday. The group unfurled a sign which read: 'Toxic oil pipeline by Citibank', as hundreds of Sydneysiders walked past during the morning commute. Citibank is one of 12 global banks with ties to pipeline projects and companies responsible for America's Dakota Access Pipeline, according to Greenpeace."

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 5/28/2018 at 8:32 AM, Rodent said:

Burning wood is my main source of heat, although my motives for doing so are purely economic--it's free, whereas propane is expensive.  

Yay, Rodi!  One seriously practical girl!  

Yup, nothing like free.  And seriously, product substitution is and remains the largest threat to global oil consumption.  Whether through substitution by electric resistance heating, or downed trees, or pellets, or even coal, or insulation, or heat pumps, or passive trombe walls, the old days of building a balloon house and parking it in an open field with zero consideration to wind or sun, hey those days are gone.  Much better building design, R-50 insulation, sealed multi-pane windows, these dramatically reduce fuels use.   In Vermont, there are large numbers of old- worn-out housing stock, including trailers, that are energy hogs.  As these get scrapped and replaced,  you will see rapid drop in overall heating materials use.  And the State has a program to subsidize and install large pellet systems for institutional and commercial buildings such as schools.  That has a lot of bang for the buck.  Add it all together, and you get drops in fuel oil consumption.  Eventually, oil for heat drops all the way to zero.  

[Rodent + 1,424]

11 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

And seriously, product substitution is and remains the largest threat to global oil consumption.  

To your point, India is now threatening OPEC, warning that the high oil prices we're seeing will dent demand. India, as one of the world's largest importers of oil, is saying it will switch some things over to nat gas and electric vehicles--erasing as much as 1 million bpd in Indian demand by 2025.

Substitution at work.

[Martin + 31]

On 7/10/2018 at 10:10 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

"Greenpeace Australia has launched a bizarre demonstration outside a Sydney bank in protest of tar sands pipelines - in the United States. Up to 20 activists dressed in hi-vis vests laid down a 30-metre pipeline outside Citibank's Park Street headquarters on Tuesday. The group unfurled a sign which read: 'Toxic oil pipeline by Citibank', as hundreds of Sydneysiders walked past during the morning commute. Citibank is one of 12 global banks with ties to pipeline projects and companies responsible for America's Dakota Access Pipeline, according to Greenpeace."

There are a mountain of environmental issues that concern Australia, within Australia, all of a significant order of magnitude more pressing to the local population which exact a direct and substantial impact on native flora and fauna, that it underscores the absolute irrelevance of Greenpeace "Australia" who prefer to attempt to 'link in' Australia via a half-baked supposedly global media campaign.

It is meaningless and irrelevant. Greenpeace may have been a serious player at one point in the 'environmental mouthpiece' stakes, but they are completely out of touch with any local Australian issues (and indeed on that front we have many hydrocarbon points of contention that they could have attempted to leverage) however unfurling banners and slack-jawing about "issues" over 10000 miles away doesn't amount to anything, it's simply a not-so-slick media campaign and does nothing to 'play themselves in' to the Australian ecological nexus.

The words, "F... off and die," spring to mind, but I can't really say that in polite company, so I won't.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Martin
Fixed tense, corrected grammar.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Rodent said:

To your point, India is now threatening OPEC, warning that the high oil prices we're seeing will dent demand. India, as one of the world's largest importers of oil, is saying it will switch some things over to nat gas and electric vehicles--erasing as much as 1 million bpd in Indian demand by 2025.

Substitution at work.

What India needs is a reduction in its fecundity rate, which at this point is in excess of 2.14.  The population equilibrium figure is 2.05, and so India has this continually increasing population, which is putting pressure on everything, including land and housing  (and tiger habitat).  Usually the fecundity rate starts to drop with higher levels of education and income, yet attempting to improve those metrics in a country of a billion is daunting.  India is a country where the prescriptive would be population collapse - say down to 150 million or less.  Is that even remotely feasible?  Does not look like it.  Thus, India will remain a continuingly increasing consumer of energy products, accelerated as the efforts to improve standard of living start to reach results.