Keystone Pipeline Leaks 210K Gallons of Oil in South Dakota

[roadmaster]

AMHERST, S.D. (AP) — TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone pipeline leaked an estimated 210,000 gallons of oil in northeastern South Dakota (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/south-dakota), the company and state regulators reported Thursday.
Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning and activated emergency response procedures after a drop in pressure was detected resulting from the leak south of a pump station in Marshall County, TransCanada said in a statement. The cause was being investigated.

Officials don't believe the leak affected any surface water bodies or threatened any drinking water systems from the spill onto agricultural land, said Brian Walsh, an environmental scientist manager at the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which has dispatched a staff member to the site.

"Ultimately, the cleanup responsibility lies with TransCanada, and they'll have to clean it up in compliance with our state regulations," Walsh said.


https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/south-dakota/articles/2017-11-16/keystone-pipeline-leaks-210k-gallons-of-oil-in-south-dakota

Not good I railed against the company with it's History in Canada. Had no problem with the pipeline just the Canada company over it.

[MisterVeritis]

Pipes leak. Clean it up and move on.

[Peter1469]

They need to review their preventive maintenance plans.

[MisterVeritis]

They need to review their preventive maintenance plans.
One of the other engineering managers came to me to discuss pipeline surveillance. It is a wickedly hard problem.

[resister]

One of the other engineering managers came to me to discuss pipeline surveillance. It is a wickedly hard problem.My first thought, sabotage my eco terrorist!

[MisterVeritis]

My first thought, sabotage my eco terrorist!
For the particular set of pipes the larger problem was theft. The problem is the same. Persistent pipeline surveillance to detect leaks, sabotage, and thefts.

[Crepitus]

Now, anyone remember why the pipeline was so strongly opposed?

[resister]

Now, anyone remember why the pipeline was so strongly opposed?
You like gas for that big, truck of yours? If it really bothers you, I have a great, recumbent, I would give you a sweet deal on!

[Chloe]

Well this just can’t be...I was under the impression that pipelines don’t leak which is why we need more and more of them going across various ecosystems. Ugh.

[MisterVeritis]

Now, anyone remember why the pipeline was so strongly opposed?
No. A small leak is not a big deal. The pipeline was opposed because Warren Buffet needed that oil to move using his assets.

[resister]

Well this just can’t be...I was under the impression that pipelines don’t leak which is why we need more and more of them going across various ecosystems. Ugh.
Progress, demands it's due. You drive, right?

[MisterVeritis]

Well this just can’t be...I was under the impression that pipelines don’t leak which is why we need more and more of them going across various ecosystems. Ugh.
Oil is a natural substance. Clean up the mess and move along.

[Crepitus]

You like gas for that big, truck of yours? If it really bothers you, I have a great, recumbent, I would give you a sweet deal on!

Nice attempt at deflection, now would you like to return to the topic?

[Peter1469]

No. A small leak is not a big deal. The pipeline was opposed because Warren Buffet needed that oil to move using his assets.

His rial roads and trains.

[resister]

Nice attempt at deflection, now would you like to return to the topic?
How is that a deflection? What flows in those pipes? Who consumes it?

[nathanbforrest45]

Now, anyone remember why the pipeline was so strongly opposed?

What does this have to do with the topic?

[exotix]

http://res.cloudinary.com/luvckye9s/image/upload/v1510884475/Palin_Spill_ldhs24.jpg

[Safety]

No. A small leak is not a big deal. The pipeline was opposed because Warren Buffet needed that oil to move using his assets.

210k gallons is not a small leak by any stretch of the imagination.

[hanger4]

210k gallons is not a small leak by any stretch of the imagination.

Considering how many barrels a day flow through it a day it is sort of small.

[resister]

Nice attempt at deflection, now would you like to return to the topic?


How is that a deflection? What flows in those pipes? Who consumes it?


What does this have to do with the topic?
Great question!:rollseyes:

[Safety]

Considering how many barrels a day flow through it a day it is sort of small.

Disagree, 210k gallons of petroleum spilling isn't small or even close to being small.

[hanger4]

Now, anyone remember why the pipeline was so strongly opposed?

BTW Crepitus that pipeline hasn't been built yet so it's not the line leaking.

[Safety]

Great question!:rollseyes:


Because people were against the pipeline for this very reason. But since this country operates on NIMBY, who cares, right?

[Crepitus]

BTW Crepitus that pipeline hasn't been built yet so it's not the line leaking.

That is not an answer to my question.

[gamewell45]

Officials don't believe the leak affected any surface water bodies or threatened any drinking water systems from the spill onto agricultural land, said Brian Walsh, an environmental scientist manager at the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which has dispatched a staff member to the site.

Which translated most likely means that it either has or will leach in the water supply and agricultural land. Of course it's such a huge emergency, they've dispatched one staff member to the site. Remember when EPA's Christie Todd Whitman told first responder's that breathing the air at the 911 site was safe? Folks, you cannot make this stuff up.

[resister]

Because people were against the pipeline for this very reason. But since this country operates on NIMBY, who cares, right?
How many miles did you drive, today?

[Safety]

How many miles did you drive, today?

http://godlessmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/straw-man.png

[MisterVeritis]

210k gallons is not a small leak by any stretch of the imagination.
Sure it is.

[MisterVeritis]

Because people were against the pipeline for this very reason. But since this country operates on NIMBY, who cares, right?
People have no idea why they are against any particular thing. It is just another way to meet easy women.

[resister]

http://godlessmom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/straw-man.png
Cute meme, you intellectual, juggernaught. Now answer the question. How many miles did you drive today? Where do you think fuel comes from? Unicorn farts?

[hanger4]

That is not an answer to my question.

It's still not pipeline that leaked.

[jimmyz]

Is oil in its natural form a contaminate? It came from the earth, maybe we can expect that a spill will be absorbed by the earth. Anti oil people will use it to bolster there cause I guess... and still use their cars.

[resister]

Is oil in its natural form a contaminate? It came from the earth, maybe we can expect that a spill will be absorbed by the earth. Anti oil people will use it to bolster there cause I guess... and still use their cars.
EXACTLY, as I have pointed out twice in this thread, F,n hypocrites. They wonder why no one takes their BS, seriously. One even likes to talk about this big gas hog of a truck, he drives...:rollseyes:

[MisterVeritis]

Is oil in its natural form a contaminate? It came from the earth, maybe we can expect that a spill will be absorbed by the earth. Anti oil people will use it to bolster there cause I guess... and still use their cars.
The image of the spill looks like it is a few hundred feet from side to side. Buy the land, fence it and let the crude oil evaporate.

[jimmyz]

The image of the spill looks like it is a few hundred feet from side to side. Buy the land, fence it and let it evaporate.

A byproduct of production like it has been since the beginning discovery in Pennsylvania. I suggest a re-occurring happenstance during transport and production..

[Green Arrow]

What does this have to do with the topic?

People opposed the pipeline because of the threat of leaks and spills, and that has no relation to the topic of the pipeline leaking?

[hanger4]

Disagree, 210k gallons of petroleum spilling isn't small or even close to being small.

There are more than 150,000 miles of oil pipelines in the US that move more than 2.2 billion barrels of oil a year. Is this leak small to the locals affected, of course not, but it's a drop in the bucket considering.

[hanger4]

Because people were against the pipeline for this very reason. But since this country operates on NIMBY, who cares, right?

Do you believe enough trucks and trains to carry 2.2 billion barrels 150,000 miles would be safer ??

[Safety]

Oil in it's natural form is a contaminate when it gets into surface and drinking water. I mean, isn't arsenic/asbestos/radon/cobalt in it's natural state toxic to humans?

Wow.

[Safety]

Do you believe enough trucks and trains to carry 2.2 billion barrels 150,000 miles would be safer ??


Yes, the accident from one of those methods of transportation would be a lot less than 210k gallons at any given time.

[resister]

Yes, the accident from one of those methods of transportation would be a lot less than 210k gallons at any given time.
But how MANY accidents would there be? Plenty of opurtunitty for more, right?

[Common Sense]

Oil in it's natural form is a contaminate when it gets into surface and drinking water. I mean, isn't arsenic/asbestos/radon/cobalt in it's natural state toxic to humans?

Wow.

Plutonium is natural. It should be in Fruit Loops.

[hanger4]

Yes, the accident from one of those methods of transportation would be a lot less than 210k gallons at any given time.

How many more trucks and trains would it take to take up the over 2 billion bbl slack and how many more accidents would there be ??

[Dr. Who]

One of the other engineering managers came to me to discuss pipeline surveillance. It is a wickedly hard problem.
There are "monitoring stations" (really just equipment) along the pipeline that monitor the flow pressure within the pipeline. They easily detect a significant breach but are pretty bad at detecting slow leaks. Visual monitoring is not particularly effective. I have always said all oil pipelines leak. I've seen enough of the claims and am all too aware of the cost of environmental cleanup, particularly if it hits the water table or an open body of water. The immediate and obvious clean-up doesn't take all that long, but monitoring wells have to be installed throughout the affected area and it generally takes a minimum of two years to determine how quickly the residual hydrocarbons are dissipating and whether additional remediation is required. The geological characteristics of the affected area tends to determine how difficult it will be to remediate.

[resister]

A lot of people like their big Trucks, but are against domestic production, fill me in, big truck, people!

[Ethereal]

Well this just can’t be...I was under the impression that pipelines don’t leak which is why we need more and more of them going across various ecosystems. Ugh.
How should we transport oil then?

[Common Sense]

There are a ton of pipelines. It can be an efficient and relatively safe mode of transport. My issue with the Trans Canada was where it ran through and the fact that it was used as a political tool and the benefits of it were greatly exaggerated.

Not to mention the disgusting way the natives were treated over it.

[resister]

There are a ton of pipelines. It can be an efficient and relatively safe mode of transport. My issue with the Trans Canada was where it ran through and the fact that it was used as a political tool and the benefits of it were greatly exaggerated.

Not to mention the disgusting way the natives were treated over it.
How is that protest camp, clean up going?

[hanger4]

There are a ton of pipelines. It can be an efficient and relatively safe mode of transport. My issue with the Trans Canada was where it ran through and the fact that it was used as a political tool and the benefits of it were greatly exaggerated.

Not to mention the disgusting way the natives were treated over it.

Understood, but that's not the pipeline that leaked, it hasn't been built yet.

[resister]

How should we transport oil then?
From third world countries? Out of sight, out of mind! OPEC, anyone? More Wars!

[Common Sense]

Understood, but that's not the pipeline that leaked, it hasn't been built yet.
I understand that.

[resister]

I understand that.
So did you have a germane, point to make?

[Abby08]

A lot of people like their big Trucks, but are against domestic production, fill me in, big truck, people!

I have a big truck and, am NOT against domestic production.....my husband works for a major refinery and, I have a credit card issued by them so, I can fill up my diesel guzzler, for free!

Chew in that, anti pipeline/oil people!

[Common Sense]

So did you have a germane, point to make?

Yes. Did you not understand my post?

[Dr. Who]

Do you believe enough trucks and trains to carry 2.2 billion barrels 150,000 miles would be safer ??

That's the great dilemma. Which is worse? The size of the spills from overland transport is generally smaller, but may also include explosions, fires and loss of life and often run through towns and cities. On the other hand, pipelines carry much greater volumes and there is a type of anaerobic bacteria present in bitumen (which is generally what is running through the pipelines) that despite the greatest efforts to line those pipes, eats away or corrodes the pipe. Often by the time that there is a major breach, there has been a slow leak for years. Also, while the pipelines are sometimes underground, they are frequently above ground and are obvious targets for vandalism or sabotage, since they more often than not pass through remote areas where such behavior would not be easily observed.

[Common Sense]

Pipelines should be seen as a temporary measure. The focus should be on renewable energy sources so these pipelines can be converted into water slides.

[Abby08]

Pipelines should be seen as a temporary measure. The focus should be on renewable energy sources so these pipelines can be converted into water slides.

No. Fossil fuels are the way to go.

[resister]

Yes. Did you not understand my post?
Your off topic post? Not worth the effort.

[Common Sense]

No. Fossil fuels are the way to go.
Why? They aren't an infinite resource and aren't good for the environment.

Man has always moved on to the next technology.

[Safety]

No. Fossil fuels are the way to go.

As to your previous post above, I can see why you think that way.

[resister]

That's the great dilemma. Which is worse? The size of the spills from overland transport is generally smaller, but may also include explosions, fires and loss of life and often run through towns and cities. On the other hand, pipelines carry much greater volumes and there is a type of anaerobic bacteria present in bitumen (which is generally what is running through the pipelines) that despite the greatest efforts to line those pipes, eats away or corrodes the pipe. Often by the time that there is a major breach, there has been a slow leak for years. Also, while the pipelines are sometimes underground, they are frequently above ground and are obvious targets for vandalism or sabotage, since they more often than not pass through remote areas where such behavior would not be easily observed.

What sort of person would do that? Maybe a pipeline "protester"?

[Common Sense]

Your off topic post? Not worth the effort.

People were discussing the proposed XL pipeline as well as the leak.

[resister]

People were discussing the proposed XL pipeline as well as the leak.Of What?

[Abby08]

Why? They aren't an infinite resource and aren't good for the environment.

Man has always moved on to the next technology.

Windfarms aren't good for the environment, either, they kill hundreds of birds of prey and, they're ugly, they're like a big ugly scar on the landscape. Have you seen any of them?

We've used fossil fuels for decades, we haven't moved on to the next technology yet, after all these years, because, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

[Dr. Who]

What sort of person would do that? Maybe a pipeline "protester"?
Or a terrorist or a vandal who just likes to destroy things.

[Common Sense]

Of What?

Oil.

[resister]

Oil.
No shit, where?

[Common Sense]

Windfarms aren't good for the environment, either, they kill hundreds of birds of prey and, they're ugly, they're like a big ugly scar on the landscape. Have you seen any of them?

We've used fossil fuels for decades, we haven't moved on to the next technology yet, after all these years, because, if it ain't broke, why fix it?
That bird meme isn't really accurate. I have seen them. There are lots in Ontario. They're good but they aren't the answer.

We used gas lamps for hundreds of years, it didn't mean we should have stayed with them. There will be a technology that will replace fossil fuels.

[Common Sense]

No shit, where?
Have you not read the thread?

I was in South Dakota this summer. I really enjoyed it. I like the big open spaces. I also spent some time in Wyoming and Montana. Amazing places. Great people.

[Abby08]

That bird meme isn't really accurate. I have seen them. There are lots in Ontario. They're good but they aren't the answer.

We used gas lamps for hundreds of years, it didn't mean we should have stayed with them. There will be a technology that will replace fossil fuels.

You're probably right, but, I don't think it will happen any time soon.....after I'm long gone, I hope, because I refuse to drive an electric car, or, a solar car, or whatever they'll have then.

[resister]

Understood, but that's not the pipeline that leaked, it hasn't been built yet.


People were discussing the proposed XL pipeline as well as the leak.


Have you not read the thread?

I was in South Dakota this summer. I really enjoyed it. I like the big open spaces. I also spent some time in Wyoming and Montana. Amazing places. Great people.
Am I missing something?

[Common Sense]

You're probably right, but, I don't think it will happen any time soon.....after I'm long gone, I hope, because I refuse to drive an electric car, or, a solar car, or whatever they'll have then.

It probably won't be for some time.

[Common Sense]

Am I missing something?
I'm certain that you are.

[resister]

I'm certain that you are.
OK, tell me what, or just carry on with your, petty 5 word, pettiness.:rollseyes:

[Tahuyaman]

Fix the mistake. Clean up the mess. Get on with business.

[Dr. Who]

You're probably right, but, I don't think it will happen any time soon.....after I'm long gone, I hope, because I refuse to drive an electric car, or, a solar car, or whatever they'll have then.
It's coming sooner than later. Electric motors are more efficient than combustion engines. Fossil fuel technology is really pretty primitive, wasteful, dirty and noisy. I expect that apart from Tesla, major leaps in electric vehicle technology will probably come from places like China, as they are not under the thumb of the oil industry.

[MisterVeritis]

There are "monitoring stations" (really just equipment) along the pipeline that monitor the flow pressure within the pipeline. They easily detect a significant breach but are pretty bad at detecting slow leaks. Visual monitoring is not particularly effective. I have always said all oil pipelines leak. I've seen enough of the claims and am all too aware of the cost of environmental cleanup, particularly if it hits the water table or an open body of water. The immediate and obvious clean-up doesn't take all that long, but monitoring wells have to be installed throughout the affected area and it generally takes a minimum of two years to determine how quickly the residual hydrocarbons are dissipating and whether additional remediation is required. The geological characteristics of the affected area tends to determine how difficult it will be to remediate.
Monitoring any linear object in near real-time for leaks, sabotage, and theft is very hard to do at a reasonable cost.

[MisterVeritis]

Pipelines should be seen as a temporary measure. The focus should be on renewable energy sources so these pipelines can be converted into water slides.
We could use nuclear energy for stationary energy needs and oil/coal for mobile energy requirements.

[Tahuyaman]

Safety is a hack.

[Tahuyaman]

It's coming sooner than later. Electric motors are more efficient than combustion engines. Fossil fuel technology is really pretty primitive, wasteful, dirty and noisy. I expect that apart from Tesla, major leaps in electric vehicle technology will probably come from places like China, as they are not under the thumb of the oil industry.

But fossil fuel technology is here to stay. It's not ever going to be replaced completely.

[Dr. Who]

But fossil fuel technology is here to stay. It's not ever going to be replaced completely.
I think that the plastics industry will continue to have a use for fossil fuels i.e. oil, but combustion tech will eventually disappear.

[Common Sense]

OK, tell me what, or just carry on with your, petty 5 word, pettiness.:rollseyes:
The ability to comprehend posts written by those who you are politically opposed to, apparently.

Easy on the comas, dude.

[Common Sense]

I think that the plastics industry will continue to have a use for fossil fuels i.e. oil, but combustion tech will eventually disappear.
Agreed. There will always be a need for petroleum products, but the internal combustion engine is almost 150 year old technology that has advanced, but remains essentially the same as it was 100 years ago.

[Tahuyaman]

I think that the plastics industry will continue to have a use for fossil fuels i.e. oil, but combustion tech will eventually disappear.
No, it won't. It will become more and more efficient.

[resister]

The ability to comprehend posts written by those who you are politically opposed to, apparently.

Easy on the comas, dude.
I will take your bullshit post, to mean, you have no adult answer? No Surprise, given your childish, avatar:rollseyes:

[Tahuyaman]

Agreed. There will always be a need for petroleum products, but the internal combustion engine is almost 150 year old technology that has advanced, but remains essentially the same as it was 100 years ago.

If you honestly believe that, you know nothing about internal combustion technology.

[Common Sense]

I will take your bullshit post, to mean, you have no adult answer? No Surprise, given your childish, avatar:rollseyes:
Sorry, I, don't, know, what, you're going, on about.

[Common Sense]

If you honestly believe that, you know nothing about internal combustion technology.

Lol. Is it not still an engine wherein a fuel combusts with air in a cylinder and forces a piston to move?

[Tahuyaman]

Lol. Is it not still an engine wherein a fuel combusts with air in a cylinder and forces a piston to move?

The principles remain the same, but the technology has progressed dramatically.


With you it's like communicating with a brick wall.

[resister]

Sorry, I, don't, know, what, you're going, on about.

Fish on, you are now allowed to troll, with abandon...:rollseyes:

[Tahuyaman]

I see idiots.....

[Common Sense]

The principles remain the same, but the technology has progressed dramatically.


With you it's like communicating with a brick wall.
So exactly what I said. Did you miss the part where I said the technology had advanced? My point is the basic principle remains the same.

I honestly don't know what you're so upset about.

[Common Sense]

Fish on, you are now allowed to troll, with abandon...:rollseyes:

Where was I trolling?

Get a grip dude. Your dislike of me is clouding your judgment and reason.

[resister]

Where was I trolling?

Get a grip dude. Your dislike of me is clouding your judgment and reason.
What pipe line Leaked? Get over yourself:rollseyes:

[Tahuyaman]

So exactly what I said. Did you miss the part where I said the technology had advanced? My point is the basic principle remains the same.

I honestly don't know what you're so upset about.

you're a brick wall. And you said it was "essentially the same as it was 100 years ago". That's not even remotely accurate.

[resister]

you're a brick wall.
Crepitus 2.0 North?

[Common Sense]

you're a brick wall.

Why? What have I said that makes you think I'm not listening to your points?

I'm just disagreeing with you and in a polite manner. Why you choose to insult me over this is bizarre.

You contend that the combustion engine will never go away and I'm saying that it's an old technology that eventually be replaced.

[Common Sense]

I know the two of you despise me, but that's no reason to discard logic.

Weird...

[roadmaster]

I see it this way. They made excuses in Canada, either they were old pipe lines, used existing, old technology, ect. Now they promised this one and it was just built not long ago, it would be reinforced, better and thicker pipe and monitored. Yes pipes leak over years, it was not expected to never leak in it's lifetime but come on. Someone either dropped the ball, cut corners or it was sabotaged. With their record and how many complaints they have had over years of not monitoring spills, never cleaning them up properly, and shady work, I bet the last. We should have put an American company over this that it would directly affect if a spill happened.

[roadmaster]

Oh and this is not the first, it's the fifth that I know of. Two very small leaks they didn't really talk about, then another they claimed the wielding on a pipe was faulty, the last they claimed while the protest were going on a faulty valve now this.

[hanger4]

That's the great dilemma. Which is worse? The size of the spills from overland transport is generally smaller, but may also include explosions, fires and loss of life and often run through towns and cities. On the other hand, pipelines carry much greater volumes and there is a type of anaerobic bacteria present in bitumen (which is generally what is running through the pipelines) that despite the greatest efforts to line those pipes, eats away or corrodes the pipe. Often by the time that there is a major breach, there has been a slow leak for years. Also, while the pipelines are sometimes underground, they are frequently above ground and are obvious targets for vandalism or sabotage, since they more often than not pass through remote areas where such behavior would not be easily observed.

Yes it's a dilemma, but over 2.2 billion bbls of liquefied petroleum pass through these pipelines a year. That would take a combination of about 3 million tanker trucks (200 bbls) and train cars (600 bbls), in addition to those already hauling, to take up the slack. That's assuming they can even deliver point to point in the same length of time, to accomplish that may involve even more tankers. Not to mention the refineries needing to spend 10's of millions if not 100's of millions to increase their capacity to off load these tankers in a timely fashion.

Therefore, I find it highly disingenuous for some here, other forums, the media and various talking heads to claim "see I told you so" when a pipe leaks without considering the alternative.

OK, y'all can have the soap box back.

[Green Arrow]

Yes it's a dilemma, but over 2.2 billion bbls of liquefied petroleum pass through these pipelines a year. That would take a combination of about 3 million tanker trucks (200 bbls) and train cars (600 bbls), in addition to those already hauling, to take up the slack. That's assuming they can even deliver point to point in the same length of time, to accomplish that may involve even more tankers. Not to mention the refineries needing to spend 10's of millions if not 100's of millions to increase their capacity to off load these tankers in a timely fashion.

Therefore, I find it highly disingenuous for some here, other forums, the media and various talking heads to claim "see I told you so" when a pipe leaks without considering the alternative.

OK, y'all can have the soap box back.

Transporting oil via trucks and trains is not the only alternative.

[hanger4]

Transporting oil via trucks and trains is not the only alternative.

By sea ??

[Adelaide]

Crepitus 2.0 North?

Thread banned.

[Cannons Front]

Transporting oil via trucks and trains is not the only alternative.

By water would be a choice if it was coming from a place that had an existing open sea port, which it does not. Most of Canada's oil and gas production occurs in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canadian_Sedimentary_Basin) which stretches from southwestern Manitoba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba) to northeastern BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia).

[Green Arrow]

By sea ??

Gradually moving away from it altogether.

[hanger4]

Gradually moving away from it altogether.

Totally all for it, but we can't stop and wait, not to mention it'll be a gradual process.

As an aside 44 billion was spent on R&D in 2015. I'd imagine more in 2016.

[Green Arrow]

Totally all for it, but we can't stop and wait, not to mention it'll be a gradual process.

As an aside 44 billion was spent on R&D in 2015. I'd imagine more in 2016.

That’s why I said “gradually.” We wouldn’t have to stop and wait, just slowly phase it out as we replace it.

[Cannons Front]

That’s why I said “gradually.” We wouldn’t have to stop and wait, just slowly phase it out as we replace it.
I am all for moving from Fossil fuels, however the replacements must be economically feasible, match or improve in reliability and the environmental impact of the whole process must be looked at rather than just the end state. An example would be Electric cars, the current batteries are not environmentally much better than gasoline because what it takes to produce them, charge them and recycle or dispose of them. Solar energy has made great gains but it remains uneconomical on large scale without HUGE subsidies.
We are decades away from true alternative power.

[hanger4]

That’s why I said “gradually.” We wouldn’t have to stop and wait, just slowly phase it out as we replace it.

Yes you did :facepalm: my bad.

[Safety]

I am all for moving from Fossil fuels, however the replacements must be economically feasible, match or improve in reliability and the environmental impact of the whole process must be looked at rather than just the end state. An example would be Electric cars, the current batteries are not environmentally much better than gasoline because what it takes to produce them, charge them and recycle or dispose of them. Solar energy has made great gains but it remains uneconomical on large scale without HUGE subsidies.
We are decades away from true alternative power.

That's because we have too many people with vested interests in keeping fossil fuels as the primary source of energy in this country, from members that don't like change, to family members that work for the industry, and to the lobbying and subsidies paid to the oil companies. When people come together, like they did in the space program to get a guy to the moon, you will see more progress being made in the alternative fuels industry and less dependency on fossil fuels.

[Tahuyaman]

As of today, there is no effective or viable alternative to fossil fuels. That has nothing to do with people failing to "come together". It also has nothing to do with some people opposing change or the fact that the industry employs people.


Technology has not yet developed to the point where we can replace it.

[Safety]

As of today, there is no effective or viable alternative to fossil fuels. That has nothing to do with people failing to "come together". It also has nothing to do with some people opposing change or the fact that the industry employs people.


Technology has not yet developed to the point where we can replace it.

We are further along with alternative fuels today than we ever were when we started the process to send a guy to the moon. Don't tell me we can't do it. As long as 35% of the country opposes it for ideological reasons, it will be a slow process.

[Cannons Front]

That's because we have too many people with vested interests in keeping fossil fuels as the primary source of energy in this country, from members that don't like change, to family members that work for the industry, and to the lobbying and subsidies paid to the oil companies. When people come together, like they did in the space program to get a guy to the moon, you will see more progress being made in the alternative fuels industry and less dependency on fossil fuels.

That is speculation, it could work that way, we have made great leaps in Battery Tech in the last 20 years, but most of it was still in areas where the tech was 100 years prior. The next great leap could happen next year, or in another 100 years. The lead-acid battery was invented in 1859, the Ni-cad and nickel-iron batteries In 1899, common alkaline Batteries 1959, NiMH Batteries 1989, Experimentation with lithium batteries began in 1912 although they were not on the market until the 70's. The portable storage of electricity has been a goal for a very long time, it has come along way, there is no way to tell when the next real break through will be.

I hope it is soon, but we can not gamble our country and our way of life on that.

[Tahuyaman]

We are further along with alternative fuels today than we ever were when we started the process to send a guy to the moon. Don't tell me we can't do it. As long as 35% of the country opposes it for ideological reasons, it will be a slow process.


Where did I say we can't do it? I said that we are not there yet. Technology is advancing. It can't advance more quickly because we wish it or really really want it to.

The country needs to work with what we have right now.

[MisterVeritis]

Transporting oil via trucks and trains is not the only alternative.
Backpacks?

[MisterVeritis]

I am all for moving from Fossil fuels, however the replacements must be economically feasible, match or improve in reliability and the environmental impact of the whole process must be looked at rather than just the end state. An example would be Electric cars, the current batteries are not environmentally much better than gasoline because what it takes to produce them, charge them and recycle or dispose of them. Solar energy has made great gains but it remains uneconomical on large scale without HUGE subsidies.
We are decades away from true alternative power.
Aren't electric cars mostly coal-powered?

[hanger4]

Aren't electric cars mostly coal-powered?

Natural gas 34% - Coal 30% - Nuclear 20% - Renewable energy 15% of which Hydro is 44% of.

Sort of depends on where you're charging your car.

[Grokmaster]

AMHERST, S.D. (AP) — TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone pipeline leaked an estimated 210,000 gallons of oil in northeastern South Dakota (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/south-dakota), the company and state regulators reported Thursday.
Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning and activated emergency response procedures after a drop in pressure was detected resulting from the leak south of a pump station in Marshall County, TransCanada said in a statement. The cause was being investigated.

Officials don't believe the leak affected any surface water bodies or threatened any drinking water systems from the spill onto agricultural land, said Brian Walsh, an environmental scientist manager at the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which has dispatched a staff member to the site.

"Ultimately, the cleanup responsibility lies with TransCanada, and they'll have to clean it up in compliance with our state regulations," Walsh said.


https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/south-dakota/articles/2017-11-16/keystone-pipeline-leaks-210k-gallons-of-oil-in-south-dakota

Not good I railed against the company with it's History in Canada. Had no problem with the pipeline just the Canada company over it.

Suspected sabotage from leftist idiots....

[Dr. Who]

you're a brick wall. And you said it was "essentially the same as it was 100 years ago". That's not even remotely accurate.
It is the same technology in principle. It is still internal combustion and there is a limit to how much efficiency can be squeezed out of it, given all of the moving parts and the built-in predilection for wear, tear and corrosion.

An electric motor can be completely shielded from the elements and since there is no friction within the motor, there is no wear and tear caused by fine metal shavings being generated. Electric motors also don't require pumps, valves, injectors, fuel lines, a steady supply of lubricant, or radiators. They don't even need even a transmission because you don't have one motor but one for each wheel or three, two in the back and one in the front. They also don't create byproducts when they are being used. The internal combustion engine is really 18th-century technology that the oil industry is dedicated to preserving.

[Tahuyaman]

It is the same technology in principle. It is still internal combustion and there is a limit to how much efficiency can be squeezed out of it, given all of the moving parts and the built-in predilection for wear, tear and corrosion.

An electric motor can be completely shielded from the elements and since there is no friction within the motor, there is no wear and tear caused by fine metal shavings being generated. Electric motors also don't require pumps, valves, injectors, fuel lines, a steady supply of lubricant, or radiators. They don't even need even a transmission because you don't have one motor but one for each wheel or three, two in the back and one in the front. They also don't create byproducts when they are being used. The internal combustion engine is really 18th-century technology that the oil industry is dedicated to preserving.

Compare an internal combustion engine from 1917 to one from today.

[Dr. Who]

I am all for moving from Fossil fuels, however the replacements must be economically feasible, match or improve in reliability and the environmental impact of the whole process must be looked at rather than just the end state. An example would be Electric cars, the current batteries are not environmentally much better than gasoline because what it takes to produce them, charge them and recycle or dispose of them. Solar energy has made great gains but it remains uneconomical on large scale without HUGE subsidies.
We are decades away from true alternative power.
Not really. There is other technology out there, but it is being deliberately squelched. If it were released it would collapse the oil industry almost overnight. I expect that between Elon Musk and China, the oil industry is currently seeing its last hurrah.

[Tahuyaman]

Not really. There is other technology out there, but it is being deliberately squelched. If it were released it would collapse the oil industry almost overnight. I expect that between Elon Musk and China, the oil industry is currently seeing its last hurrah.

Nothing which can be an effective and viable replacement is being suppressed. Once there's a viable, reliable and workable alternative, it will be put to use.

[Peter1469]

I am all for moving from Fossil fuels, however the replacements must be economically feasible, match or improve in reliability and the environmental impact of the whole process must be looked at rather than just the end state. An example would be Electric cars, the current batteries are not environmentally much better than gasoline because what it takes to produce them, charge them and recycle or dispose of them. Solar energy has made great gains but it remains uneconomical on large scale without HUGE subsidies.
We are decades away from true alternative power.
We have true alternatives now. It will be decades, probably 3 before we are 100% alternatives.

[Dr. Who]

Compare an internal combustion engine from 1917 to one from today.
One is fancier than the other and goes a bit faster. The one from 1917 could be run on white lightning or gasoline. It didn't matter which. Can't say the same of most vehicles today.

[Common Sense]

One is fancier than the other and goes a bit faster. The one from 1917 could be run on white lightning or gasoline. It didn't matter which. Can't say the same of most vehicles today.
Efficiency has certainly increased dramatically and due to legislation, engines today produce fewer emissions. Transmissions have changed dramatically and electronics now control every aspect of their function.

That being said, the basic principle remains the same.

The evolution away from combustion will probably be hybrids, then full electric and then possibly hydrogen or some technology that hasn't surfaced yet. The fact is, there will be a move away from combustion.

[Tahuyaman]

One is fancier than the other and goes a bit faster. The one from 1917 could be run on white lightning or gasoline. It didn't matter which. Can't say the same of most vehicles today.

They are now just fancier and faster? Obviously you are not well informed on the technological advancements in the area of the internal combustion engine.

[Tahuyaman]

Efficiency has certainly increased dramatically and due to legislation, engines today produce fewer emissions. Transmissions have changed dramatically and electronics now control every aspect of their function.

That being said, the basic principle remains the same.

The evolution away from combustion will probably be hybrids, then full electric and then possibly hydrogen or some technology that hasn't surfaced yet. The fact is, there will be a move away from combustion.
The improvements are due to legislation? It's amusing how so many people worship government.

[Common Sense]

The improvements are due to legislation? It's amusing how so many people worship government.

Why you always have to be so obtuse is beyond me. Acknowledging the fact that mandated emission standards have pushed manufacturers to produce vehicles that meet those emission standards is far from "worshipping" government.

[Dr. Who]

They are now just fancier and faster? Obviously you are not well informed on the technological advancements in the area of the internal combustion engine. The engine itself is fundamentally the same. The add-ons, like fuel injection, computer control, oxygen/fuel analysis etc, which are actually extrinsic to the actual engine are different but are not actually part of the engine. The only really new combustion engine invented in the last 100 years is the rotary engine and the first real advance in combustion engine technology in the last 85 years is the liquid piston rotary engine developed through DARPA for use by the military, but at the end of the day, it's still a combustion engine.

[Tahuyaman]

Why you always have to be so obtuse is beyond me. Acknowledging the fact that mandated emission standards have pushed manufacturers to produce vehicles that meet those emission standards is far from "worshipping" government.


Fuel economy inprovements aren't due to legislation. They are due to advances in technology. Is there any improvement in our life which you won't give credit to government ?

[Tahuyaman]

The engine itself is fundamentally the same. The add-ons, like fuel injection, computer control, oxygen/fuel analysis etc, which are actually extrinsic to the actual engine are different but are not actually part of the engine. The only really new combustion engine invented in the last 100 years is the rotary engine and the first real advance in combustion engine technology in the last 85 years is the liquid piston rotary engine developed through DARPA for use by the military, but at the end of the day, it's still a combustion engine.



Unbelievable. When you get stuck in a ditch, it's not the best option to keep spinning your wheels.

[Common Sense]

Fuel economy inprovements aren't due to legislation. They are due to advances in technology. Is there any improvement in our life which you won't give credit to government ?
If you want to ignore reality and mischaracterize my statements, that's fine.

The fact is, emission standards have driven manufacturers to improve technology to meet those standards. That's just a fact. It would be far easier and cheaper for manufacturers to produce vehicles with higher emission levels.

[Common Sense]

Unbelievable. When you get stuck in a ditch, it's not the best option to keep spinning your wheels.
It's more than just a little ironic that you claim that I'm the brick wall.

[Ethereal]

Pipelines should be seen as a temporary measure. The focus should be on renewable energy sources so these pipelines can be converted into water slides.

If and when "renewable" energy sources become economical, the market will adopt them voluntarily. In fact, one of the biggest obstacles to the voluntary adoption of renewable energy like solar is - surprise, surprise - corrupt government.


Rules prevent solar panels in many states with abundant sunlight (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-no-solar-20140810-story.html)

Long story short: Entrenched corporate interests use the regulatory powers of the state to inhibit competition and keep consumers dependent on the status quo.

Who'd have thunk it?

[Ethereal]

Why?

Because they are economical, efficient, and abundant. Obviously.


They aren't an infinite resource...

No resource is technically infinite. But hydrocarbons are abundant, which is exactly what you would want in an energy source.


...and aren't good for the environment.

Debatable. The byproducts of burning hydrocarbons are just water vapor and carbon dioxide (ALA plant food). Granted, some impurities are burned in the process, which results in truly toxic substances, but they are produced in relatively small amounts that dissipate and dissolve readily in the atmosphere.


Man has always moved on to the next technology.

Yea, when it was economical to do so. Right now, widespread adoption of renewable energy is not even close to economical, so it is incredible Utopian to try and force the issue. I believe that if we simply leave the market to its own devices, renewable energy will find its place "in the sun" in due time. There really is no need to rush.

[Dr. Who]

Unbelievable. When you get stuck in a ditch, it's not the best option to keep spinning your wheels.
I suspect that you are one of those people who is change resistant i.e. if it was good enough for grandfather and your father, it's good enough for you. Regardless of whether you like it or not, technology changes and the inefficient is replaced by the more efficient whether you like it or not. Your argument vis-a-vis maintaining internal combusion is to me like arguments about creating a more efficient wood burning oven vs an electric oven or arguing in favor of oil burning furnaces.

[Common Sense]

Because they are economical, efficient, and abundant. Obviously.



No resource is technically infinite. But hydrocarbons are abundant, which is exactly what you would want in an energy source.



Debatable. The byproducts of burning hydrocarbons are just water vapor and carbon dioxide (ALA plant food). Granted, some impurities are burned in the process, which results in truly toxic substances, but they are produced in relatively small amounts that dissipate and dissolve readily in the atmosphere.



Yea, when it was economical to do so. Right now, widespread adoption of renewable energy is not even close to economical, so it is incredible Utopian to try and force the issue. I believe that if we simply leave the market to its own devices, renewable energy will find its place "in the sun" in due time. There really is no need to rush.
I'm not saying that the change will happen over night. It will be an evolutionary process. We're currently in that process.

The argument about carbon dioxide is probably best suited to a different thread...but I think we can all agree that there are downsides to burning hydrocarbons.

I for for one am not for a forced change that would have detrimental economic effects. I prefer evolution over revolution.

[Ethereal]

Electric motors are more efficient than combustion engines.

No they aren't. Not even close. If they were more efficient, then everyone would be using them.


Fossil fuel technology is really pretty primitive, wasteful, dirty and noisy.

You are massively exaggerating the problems associated with hydrocarbons while completely ignoring the massive shortcomings of alternative energy sources.


I expect that apart from Tesla, major leaps in electric vehicle technology will probably come from places like China, as they are not under the thumb of the oil industry.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Electricity_Production_in_China.png

[Dr. Who]

Because they are economical, efficient, and abundant. Obviously.



No resource is technically infinite. But hydrocarbons are abundant, which is exactly what you would want in an energy source.



Debatable. The byproducts of burning hydrocarbons are just water vapor and carbon dioxide (ALA plant food). Granted, some impurities are burned in the process, which results in truly toxic substances, but they are produced in relatively small amounts that dissipate and dissolve readily in the atmosphere.



Yea, when it was economical to do so. Right now, widespread adoption of renewable energy is not even close to economical, so it is incredible Utopian to try and force the issue. I believe that if we simply leave the market to its own devices, renewable energy will find its place "in the sun" in due time. There really is no need to rush.
Fossil fuels were not initially economical either. In fact automobiles were initially only owned by the wealthy. Demand brings down price.

[Ethereal]

Dr. Who looks to China, whose economy is totally dependent on burning coal, for the energy of the future...

[Ethereal]

Fossil fuels were not initially economical either. In fact automobiles were initially only owned by the wealthy. Demand brings down price.
No, demand does not bring prices down. It does the exact opposite, in fact.

[Tahuyaman]

I suspect that you are one of those people who is change resistant i.e. if it was good enough for grandfather and your father, it's good enough for you. Regardless of whether you like it or not, technology changes and the inefficient is replaced by the more efficient whether you like it or not. Your argument vis-a-vis maintaining internal combusion is to me like arguments about creating a more efficient wood burning oven vs an electric oven or arguing in favor of oil burning furnaces.


I'm resistant to change because I recognize the technological advances in the internal combustion engine and also acknowledge there's not yet a viable alternative? Ok.


You can continue to think nothing of substance has changed in the last 100 years.

[Dr. Who]

No they aren't. Not even close. If they were more efficient, then everyone would be using them.



You are massively exaggerating the problems associated with hydrocarbons while completely ignoring the massive shortcomings of alternative energy sources.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Electricity_Production_in_China.png
Electric motors in general, are more efficient technolgy. Do you see many manufacturing plants using internal combustion engines to drive their assembly lines? How many submarines are using internal combustion? Electric motors are lightyears more efficient than internal combustion engines. China is currently using what it has in abundance, but don't expect that they are not looking for cheaper alternatives. They are not tethered to the fossil fuel industry.

[Dr. Who]

I'm resistant to change because I recognize the technological advances in the internal combustion engine and also acknowledge there's not yet a viable alternative? Ok.


You can continue to think nothing of substance has changed in the last 100 years.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/16/16667366/tesla-semi-truck-announced-price-release-date-electric-self-driving

[Dr. Who]

No, demand does not bring prices down. It does the exact opposite, in fact.

In the long run it does. Having a market for your product allows prices to drop because the manufacturer can buy in bulk and afford more efficient manufacturing equipment. See Ford Motor Company.

[Common Sense]

No, demand does not bring prices down. It does the exact opposite, in fact.

Not always. Increased demand can mean large increases in production that drive down manufacturing cost. Look at VCR's or flatscreen televisions. Initially they were very expensive, but as demand increased, prices dropped.

[MisterVeritis]

Not really. There is other technology out there, but it is being deliberately squelched. If it were released it would collapse the oil industry almost overnight. I expect that between Elon Musk and China, the oil industry is currently seeing its last hurrah.
1) Other technology? Who is preventing this magical other technology?
2) Oil industry collapse. Sure. uh-huh.
3) Is E. Musk good at anything beyond having the taxpayers fund his projects?

[Tahuyaman]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/16/16667366/tesla-semi-truck-announced-price-release-date-electric-self-driving


Wow. A long haul type truck which has a 200 to 500 mile range. That's certainly a viable alternative.
Technology is advancing. Some day we may get there, but we aren't there yet.

[Common Sense]

1) Other technology? Who is preventing this magical other technology?
2) Oil industry collapse. Sure. uh-huh.
3) Is E. Musk good at anything beyond having the taxpayers fund his projects?
Far more subsidies are directed at the fossil fuel industry than renewables.

[MisterVeritis]

We have true alternatives now. It will be decades, probably 3 before we are 100% alternatives.
You are a dreamer, Peter.

[Common Sense]

Wow. A long haul type truck which has a 200 to 500 mile range. That's certainly a viable alternative.
Technology is advancing. Some day we may get there, but we aren't there yet.
800 miles.

[Tahuyaman]

1) Other technology? Who is preventing this magical other technology?
2) Oil industry collapse. Sure. uh-huh.
3) Is E. Musk good at anything beyond having the taxpayers fund his projects?

The major oil companies are pioneering alternative energy sources. They are in the energy business. They want to remain in the energy business.

[Tahuyaman]

800 miles.


The link said two to five hundred.......
Musk appeared Thursday night in Hawthorne (https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/16/16657580/tesla-live-stream-semi-truck-event-start-time-2017), California, to show off his company’s newest vehicle, promising a range in the neighborhood of 500 miles for the Class 8 heavy-duty vehicle. Earlier reports (https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/24/16199522/tesla-truck-range-miles-big-rig) pegged the range between 200 and 300 miles, but Musk delighted in besting those numbers in his remarks, including his claim that the truck has a 400-mile range with 30 minutes of charging. Musk had also promised self-driving (https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/9/16121654/tesla-truck-self-driving-autopilot-big-rig) abilities, and Tesla says this delivers at least semi-autonomous capability.

[Common Sense]

The link said two to five hundred.......
My mistake, I could have sworn I saw 800 miles. Oops, maybe it was 800 kilometres.

[Dr. Who]

Wow. A long haul type truck which has a 200 to 500 mile range. That's certainly a viable alternative.
Technology is advancing. Some day we may get there, but we aren't there yet.

Good enough in Europe and Tesla provides the recharging stations gratis. Musk is continually pushing the envelope and it's pushing others to step up to the plate. Clean air is a big deal in Europe.

[Common Sense]

Charging doesn't seem efficient to me. They should develop a system to swap out batteries rather than charging.

[Tahuyaman]

Good enough in Europe and Tesla provides the recharging stations gratis. Musk is continually pushing the envelope and it's pushing others to step up to the plate. Clean air is a big deal in Europe.


The US isn't Europe. We have different needs. Again, technology is advancing. We will get there when we get there. You can't force it upon us.

[Dr. Who]

The US isn't Europe. We have different needs. Again, technology is advancing. We will get there when we get there. You can't force it upon us.
Nothing is being forced, but one day you will wake up and find that no one is still selling internal combustion vehicles. I bought a truck in 2016 - internal combustion. I fully expect that my next vehicle will be electric. FYI - I bought eight years of warranty, so I'm not getting rid of it anytime soon.

[Dr. Who]

Charging doesn't seem efficient to me. They should develop a system to swap out batteries rather than charging.

I'd prefer an internal hydrogen plant. You supply the water.

[MisterVeritis]

If you want to ignore reality and mischaracterize my statements, that's fine.

The fact is, emission standards have driven manufacturers to improve technology to meet those standards. That's just a fact. It would be far easier and cheaper for manufacturers to produce vehicles with higher emission levels.
If government mandates are the reason why not mandate warp propulsion?

[Tahuyaman]

Nothing is being forced, but one day you will wake up and find that no one is still selling internal combustion vehicles. I bought a truck in 2016 - internal combustion. I fully expect that my next vehicle will be electric. FYI - I bought eight years of warranty, so I'm not getting rid of it anytime soon.

I doubt there will ever be a time when the internal combustion engine is extinct.


If I could buy an electric powers truck that had the hauling capacity of my F350 diesel and a suitable range at an affordable price I'd be all over it. As long as I had the ability to recharge it in the middle of Nebraska 500 miles from any civilization. I guess I could recharge using my Honda gas powered generator.

[Tahuyaman]

If you want to ignore reality and mischaracterize my statements, that's fine.

The fact is, emission standards have driven manufacturers to improve technology to meet those standards. That's just a fact. It would be far easier and cheaper for manufacturers to produce vehicles with higher emission levels.

The demands of the consumer have been the driving force to improve technology.

[Common Sense]

If government mandates are the reason why not mandate warp propulsion?
Because it's not realistic. Like with most industries, government and the automakers work together to set realistic goals that can be achieved. Legislation isn't just sprung on them.

[Tahuyaman]

Just as there's no realistic alternative to fossil fuel use today.

[Grokmaster]

If government mandates are the reason why not mandate warp propulsion?

That pretty much nails it. Good one. :grin:

[Grokmaster]

Because it's not realistic. Like with most industries, government and the automakers work together to set realistic goals that can be achieved. Legislation isn't just sprung on them.
Oh yes it is.

[Common Sense]

The demands of the consumer have been the driving force to improve technology.
That's often true. However without emission standards, people would purchase vehicles with poor emissions because they'd be cheaper. People are driven by fuel efficiency more than they are driven by emission standards.

It is a fact that emission regulations and safety regulations have forced automakers to make technological advances that they may have not made without those standards.

[Common Sense]

Oh yes it is.

Warp drives are realistic? Or regulations are sprung on them?

[leekohler2]

Now, anyone remember why the pipeline was so strongly opposed?

Exactly. This is precisely why people fought against it.

[leekohler2]

Great question!:rollseyes:

It has a lot to do with the topic. People opposed this pipeline exactly for this reason- massive spills. And that's exactly what happened. Almost a quarter of a million gallons were spilled. That's a big deal.

[Dr. Who]

I doubt there will ever be a time when the internal combustion engine is extinct.


If I could buy an electric powers truck that had the hauling capacity of my F350 diesel and a suitable range at an affordable price I'd be all over it. As long as I had the ability to recharge it in the middle of Nebraska 500 miles from any civilization. I guess I could recharge using my Honda gas powered generator.
As much as it took time to create gas stations in remote areas, it will probably take a little time to provide charging stations, but they are coming. Carrying a gas generator is a good idea if you are travelling in remote areas. I expect that for a while after electric vehicles become mainstream gas will drop in price until reserves get depleted and then only a few players will remain in the industry and prices will climb again.

[Common Sense]

I doubt there will ever be a time when the internal combustion engine is extinct.


If I could buy an electric powers truck that had the hauling capacity of my F350 diesel and a suitable range at an affordable price I'd be all over it. As long as I had the ability to recharge it in the middle of Nebraska 500 miles from any civilization. I guess I could recharge using my Honda gas powered generator.

I agree that they won't go extinct, but like horseback riding, they will be a luxury and most likely classics that people drive on the weekends.

[MisterVeritis]

I suspect that you are one of those people who is change resistant i.e. if it was good enough for grandfather and your father, it's good enough for you. Regardless of whether you like it or not, technology changes and the inefficient is replaced by the more efficient whether you like it or not. Your argument vis-a-vis maintaining internal combusion is to me like arguments about creating a more efficient wood burning oven vs an electric oven or arguing in favor of oil burning furnaces.
Physics will define the limits, despite your protests and government mandates.

[Tahuyaman]

I agree that they won't go extinct, but like horseback riding, they will be a luxury and most likely classics that people drive on the weekends.

I think you overestimate this future alternative fuels source.

[Tahuyaman]

Physics will define the limits, despite your protests and government mandates.

Give it up. You are disussing the issue with a worshiper of big government.


Government mandates it, so it shall be done.

[MisterVeritis]

Because it's not realistic. Like with most industries, government and the automakers work together to set realistic goals that can be achieved. Legislation isn't just sprung on them.
For those who love government, there is no possible arrangement other than government mandates.

Government is a necessary evil. I wonder why some love it so.

[MisterVeritis]

It has a lot to do with the topic. People opposed this pipeline exactly for this reason- massive spills. And that's exactly what happened. Almost a quarter of a million gallons were spilled. That's a big deal.
An unlikely high estimate of 210 thousand gallons has magically become a quarter of a million gallons. By Tuesday it will approach a million gallons of crude on the ground.

But the puddle looks like it is a couple of hundred feet across. It is a small spill.

[Common Sense]

I think you overestimate this future alternative fuels source.
Maybe. But I seriously doubt that gas engines are the pinnacle and that advances in transportation end with the gas engine.

Do you think people will still be driving cars with gas engines in 100 years from now?

[Peter1469]

If you want to ignore reality and mischaracterize my statements, that's fine.

The fact is, emission standards have driven manufacturers to improve technology to meet those standards. That's just a fact. It would be far easier and cheaper for manufacturers to produce vehicles with higher emission levels.
Here in America a large percentage of people want larger trucks and SUVs. That is why the legislation has been set as an average for a car manufacture. They can build some little thing that gets over 50 mph, and a certain niche will buy that while the bulk of America is getting vehicles with lower gas mileage.

[Tahuyaman]

Maybe. But I seriously doubt that gas engines are the pinnacle and that advances in transportation end with the gas engine.

Do you think people will still be driving cars with gas engines in 100 years from now?
Deisel is the way to go. I once had high hopes for hydrogen fuel cell technology.

[Kalkin]

Almost a quarter of a million gallons were spilled. That's a big deal.
Not really.

[Tahuyaman]

Here in America a large percentage of people want larger trucks and SUVs. That is why the legislation has been set as an average for a car manufacture. They can build some little thing that gets over 50 mph, and a certain niche will buy that while the bulk of America is getting vehicles with lower gas mileage. My F350 dually with a 6.7 liter deisel gets the same or even better fuel economy as many small cars. Plus it's safer and dramatically more comfortable

[Common Sense]

Give it up. You are disussing the issue with a worshiper of big government.


Government mandates it, so it shall be done.

There are plenty of real things for us all to disagree about without making up bullshit.

Claiming anyone here "worships" government is not only false, but it indicates that you really don't understand those who you disagree with.

It's hyperbolic and not much different than claiming a conservative worships guns, the military industrial complex or tax cuts. Certainly I'm biased, but I do see this behaviour as being more prevalent on the right...at least here.

When someone acknowledges the value of government, they are accused of worshipping the government.

When someone calls for sensible gun control, they are labeled a gun grabber.

When someone advocates a social safety net or government programs, they are called a socialist or communist.

When someone acknowledges the issue of race and the criminal justice system, they're called a racist or cop hater.

When you acknowledge mistakes or disagree with things the US has done in the past, you are labeled anti American.

I could go on as there are many more examples. My point is this hyperbole isn't based in reality and the effect is further division and frankly it makes some people look ignorant. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of examples of some on the left doing the same thing...but I do think the right does it more.

[leekohler2]

Here in America a large percentage of people want larger trucks and SUVs. That is why the legislation has been set as an average for a car manufacture. They can build some little thing that gets over 50 mph, and a certain niche will buy that while the bulk of America is getting vehicles with lower gas mileage.
The emission standards are the same for those vehicles:

https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t2.php

[Common Sense]

For those who love government, there is no possible arrangement other than government mandates.

Government is a necessary evil. I wonder why some love it so.

Who loves it so? You may be mistaking an acknowledgement of a valid role in society and pointing out the fact that emission standards have directly impacted vehicle emissions for a "love" or "worship" of government.

[Common Sense]

Deisel is the way to go. I once had high hopes for hydrogen fuel cell technology.

I like diesel. My next vehicle will either be a hybrid or diesel.

[Tahuyaman]

The worshippers of big government are smart enough to deny their worship. But they still get defensive every time a government program is criticized.



Except for Trump government anyway.

[MisterVeritis]

Who loves it so? You may be mistaking an acknowledgement of a valid role in society and pointing out the fact that emission standards have directly impacted vehicle emissions for a "love" or "worship" of government.
You have a record and a history. It is difficult to escape it. Like nearly all liberals you love that government can punish your political enemies while enriching your political allies. I see government as a necessary evil. The evil has grown and will consume us. You don't care. I do.

I am about to have some work done. I have to bribe the governments, at all levels from local to federal with large bundles of cash so I can get the work done. About 60% of the money I spend will be productively used to get something I want. And 40% will go to greedy government officials who will consume much of it themselves and use the rest to buy the votes from my political opponents.
How much greed? About 15 thousand dollars worth of improvements will cost me about 25K. I loathe governments.

[leekohler2]

There are plenty of real things for us all to disagree about without making up bull$#@!.

Claiming anyone here "worships" government is not only false, but it indicates that you really don't understand those who you disagree with.

It's hyperbolic and not much different than claiming a conservative worships guns, the military industrial complex or tax cuts. Certainly I'm biased, but I do see this behaviour as being more prevalent on the right...at least here.

When someone acknowledges the value of government, they are accused of worshipping the government.

When someone calls for sensible gun control, they are labeled a gun grabber.

When someone advocates a social safety net or government programs, they are called a socialist or communist.

When someone acknowledges the issue of race and the criminal justice system, they're called a racist or cop hater.

When you acknowledge mistakes or disagree with things the US has done in the past, you are labeled anti American.

I could go on as there are many more examples. My point is this hyperbole isn't based in reality and the effect is further division and frankly it makes some people look ignorant. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of examples of some on the left doing the same thing...but I do think the right does it more.
And you just told the absolute truth.

[Peter1469]

Wow. A long haul type truck which has a 200 to 500 mile range. That's certainly a viable alternative.
Technology is advancing. Some day we may get there, but we aren't there yet.
A 500 mile range for the Tesla long-haul truck is twice the range of the current diesel long hauls. But I think the long haul truck market is moving to driver-less, so Musk needs to redesign this one.

[Peter1469]

You are a dreamer, Peter.

I am an amateur historian.

[Peter1469]

My mistake, I could have sworn I saw 800 miles. Oops, maybe it was 800 kilometres.

Damn metric system.....

[Tahuyaman]

A 500 mile range for the Tesla long-haul truck is twice the range of the current diesel long hauls. But I think the long haul truck market is moving to driver-less, so Musk needs to redesign this one.

It's not twice the range. I don't know where you got that data. And the Tesla has not achieved that number. They just have only promised that they will eventually.

Most big rigs have a range of more than 1,000 miles.

[Peter1469]

If government mandates are the reason why not mandate warp propulsion?
The government tends not to mandate far off tech. They will, however, toss money at DARPA and other cutting edge private firms to test the limits.

[MisterVeritis]

I am an amateur historian.
Cool. Someone needs to knock the dust off the books. You are still a dreamer.

[Peter1469]

The emission standards are the same for those vehicles:

https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t2.php
I misread and was thinking mpg.

[MisterVeritis]

The government tends not to mandate far off tech. They will, however, toss money at DARPA and other cutting edge private firms to test the limits.
Nearly everything done is engineering, not basic science. I still get the monthly science and technology newsletters from the appropriate DoD agency. Some of it is very interesting. Most of it involves some improvements of the things we already know. We mature our engineering understandings far more than we extend scientific knowledge.

[Common Sense]

The worshippers of big government are smart enough to deny their worship. But they still get defensive every time a government program is criticized.



Except for Trump anyway.
I don't think you're correct. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the people you oppose politically.

I certainly don't worship government. I'm often frustrated with government. I'm not a fan of most political leaders. Even liberal ones. I see a lot of waste, disfunction and a system that puts getting elected over governing. That being said, I understand that even though there are problems, government plays a crucial role in the structure of society and economy.

I own a business. I certainly don't worship government, but I don't see it as an evil that seeks to oppress and enslave us. Painting me as a government worshiper only illustrates that you don't understand my perspective.

[leekohler2]

A 500 mile range for the Tesla long-haul truck is twice the range of the current diesel long hauls. But I think the long haul truck market is moving to driver-less, so Musk needs to redesign this one.

Driver-less tech is further away than we think right now. One of my teammates works on that tech. There are many problems with it that they have not been able to solve, mainly because we don’t have AI yet that can react to a lot of situations. It’s coming for sure, but not for quite a while yet. Maybe in 10-15 years. It’s still a ways off.

[Common Sense]

Damn metric system.....
You'll switch eventually. :evil:

[Tahuyaman]

I don't think you're correct. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the people you oppose politically.

I certainly don't worship government. I'm often frustrated with government. I'm not a fan of most political leaders. Even liberal ones. I see a lot of waste, disfunction and a system that puts getting elected over governing. That being said, I understand that even though there are problems, government plays a crucial role in the structure of society and economy.

I own a business. I certainly don't worship government, but I don't see it as an evil that seeks to oppress and enslave us. Painting me as a government worshiper only illustrates that you don't understand my perspective.
I have a fundamental understanding of liberals and the religion of liberalism.

[Tahuyaman]

A 500 mile range for the Tesla long-haul truck is twice the range of the current diesel long hauls...Are you seriously claiming that the range of a deisel long haul semi truck is 250 miles? Uh... okeedokee.

[Common Sense]

I have a fundamental understanding of liberals and the religion of liberalism.

Clearly you don't. You have a fictional characterization of an enemy that doesn't really exist. It's not much different than the stereotype that some liberals believe in of the ignorant, hateful, racist, greedy and violent conservative with a mullet and a sister for a wife. Both are equally ridiculous.

[Peter1469]

It's not twice the range. I don't know where you got that data. And the Tesla has not achieved that number. They just have only promised that they will eventually.

Most big rigs have a range of more than 1,000 miles.
I saw it in another article on the same topic as the OP. But if they has a 1000 gallon tank, they can go more than 250 miles. I wonder if the article I read did some sort of cost comparison per mile of fuel to get the 2-1 ratio.

[Dr. Who]

Natural gas 34% - Coal 30% - Nuclear 20% - Renewable energy 15% of which Hydro is 44% of.

Sort of depends on where you're charging your car.

If you are charging at a Tesla charge point, your electricity is strictly solar.

[Peter1469]

Cool. Someone needs to knock the dust off the books. You are still a dreamer.

History tells me that people who sought to achieve, advance or just plain kill the enemy developed new ways of doing that. The people who sought comfort did not.

Look at the ROI for the Apollo Program- something like 26:1. Most of those knew technologies would have taken years or decades to get into the culture without Apollo.

[Tahuyaman]

I saw it in another article on the same topic as the OP. But if they has a 1000 gallon tank, they can go more than 250 miles. I wonder if the article I read did some sort of cost comparison per mile of fuel to get the 2-1 ratio.
Your data on the mig is incorrect. Now think about it... 1000 gallons of fuel to go 250 miles? That would be five gallons to the mile.

It's 250 gallons of fuel to go 1000 miles. They get at least 5 mpg. Some do better.

[Peter1469]

Driver-less tech is further away than we think right now. One of my teammates works on that tech. There are many problems with it that they have not been able to solve, mainly because we don’t have AI yet that can react to a lot of situations. It’s coming for sure, but not for quite a while yet. Maybe in 10-15 years. It’s still a ways off.
One big problem is that it needs to be all or none. That issue is going to hold it off for decades. They may make separate roads for long haul trucks to use as driver-less vehicles.

[Peter1469]

I responded above.
Are you seriously claiming that the range of a deisel long haul semi truck is 250 miles? Uh... okeedokee.

[Peter1469]

Your data on the mig is incorrect. Now think about it... 1000 gallons of fuel to go 250 miles? That would be five gallons to the mile.

It's 250 gallons of fuel to go 1000 miles. They get at least 5 mpg. Some do better.

I said cost comparison.

[Tahuyaman]

Considering how many barrels a day flow through it a day it is sort of small.
Has this pipeline been built yet?

[MisterVeritis]

History tells me that people who sought to achieve, advance or just plain kill the enemy developed new ways of doing that. The people who sought comfort did not.

Look at the ROI for the Apollo Program- something like 26:1. Most of those knew technologies would have taken years or decades to get into the culture without Apollo.
And yet you believe something will come along as a complete alternative to fossil fuels in the next few decades.

[Tahuyaman]

I said cost comparison.
You also said they need 1000 gallons of fuel to have the ability to travel 250 miles.

[Peter1469]

And yet you believe something will come along as a complete alternative to fossil fuels in the next few decades.

I believe within 3-4 decades several alternative fuel sources will replace fossil fuels totally. That I one reason I blow off the global warming crowd- science will moot their arguments. I include nuclear in alternative.

[Peter1469]

You also said they need 1000 gallons of fuel to have the ability to travel 250 miles.

No I didn't. I stated what I read in an article on the Tesla truck. I had no idea current long haul trucks have 1000 gallon tanks. But I expect their gas mileage sucks super bad.

[leekohler2]

One big problem is that it needs to be all or none. That issue is going to hold it off for decades. They may make separate roads for long haul trucks to use as driver-less vehicles.

Agreed. That's what my teammate told me. He said right now it can only work if roadways for driverless trucks are basically like train tracks, separate roadways. They can't get them to react to the human element. And let's face it, there are too many people like myself who find joy in driving. I don't see that ever changing. It may be minimized, but like anything else- it will simply change, not go away.

Remember when they said the CD would kill vinyl records? Same thing. Vinyl records are still around and very popular, but even so a niche market. MP3s though, did kill the CD. :)

[Common Sense]

I believe within 3-4 decades several alternative fuel sources will replace fossil fuels totally. That I one reason I blow off the global warming crowd- science will moot their arguments. I include nuclear in alternative.
While I agree with you, I do believe it's best to be proactive and address the contributions to AGW. But a big part of me sees combating it as unrealistic and that eventually alternative energy sources will solve the problem.

[leekohler2]

I believe within 3-4 decades several alternative fuel sources will replace fossil fuels totally. That I one reason I blow off the global warming crowd- science will moot their arguments. I include nuclear in alternative.

I would say that happens sooner than later. Electric cars are pretty great with regard to speed. Plus, they're pretty simple mechanically.

[MisterVeritis]

I believe within 3-4 decades several alternative fuel sources will replace fossil fuels totally. That I one reason I blow off the global warming crowd- science will moot their arguments. I include nuclear in alternative.
We can agree to disagree.

[Tahuyaman]

No I didn't. I stated what I read in an article on the Tesla truck. I had no idea current long haul trucks have 1000 gallon tanks. But I expect their gas mileage sucks super bad.
Clearly you said that a semi truck needs 1000 gallons of fuel to travel st least 250 miles. That would be in the neighborhood of 5 gallons to the mile.

Semis generally gave a 250 to 300 gal fuel tank. Iv'e heard of some which carry 500 gallons of fuel. They get 5 miles per gallon or more. That's more than 1000 miles of cruising range.

The Tesla claims 200 to 300 miles range per charge. Hopefully increasing that to nearly 500 miles. That is not twice the cruising range as a deisel semi truck as you claimed.

If you misspoke or misread something just say so.

[Common Sense]

Agreed. That's what my teammate told me. He said right now it can only work if roadways for driverless trucks are basically like train tracks, separate roadways. They can't get them to react to the human element. And let's face it, there are too many people like myself who find joy in driving. I don't see that ever changing. It may be minimized, but like anything else- it will simply change, not go away.

Remember when they said the CD would kill vinyl records? Same thing. Vinyl records are still around and very popular, but even so a niche market. MP3s though, did kill the CD. :)
I think the tech will be able to integrate driverless with drivers, but it does have an element of danger that could make it unpopular.

I'm with you on driving through, I enjoy driving. I don't want that to go away.

[MisterVeritis]

Remember when they said the CD would kill vinyl records? Same thing. Vinyl records are still around and very popular, but even so a niche market. MP3s though, did kill the CD. :)
Hmmm. A CD or DVD is a storage place. What killed the CD/DVD was ubiquitous mass storage ranging from many gigabyte-sized USB drives to petabyte sized network storage devices connected at adequate speeds.

[Tahuyaman]

I would say that happens sooner than later. Electric cars are pretty great with regard to speed. Plus, they're pretty simple mechanically.Electric cars are extremely complicated. They have a very inconvenient cruising range and the batteries are an environmental nightmare to dispose of. They are noisy and uncomfortable.

[leekohler2]

I think the tech will be able to integrate driverless with drivers, but it does have an element of danger that could make it unpopular.
I agree, that's where I really see this going. But I heard somewhere that even you were in a driverless car and drunk, you'd still get arrested because you were not paying attention to the warnings a driverless car might give you.

I'm with you on driving through, I enjoy driving. I don't want that to go away.

There are just too many fun cars to drive. I'm lucky, because of the fact that I live in the city. I don't need a car, except to go to hockey rinks. I take the bus or train to work every day. I only have a car because trying to take gear on public trans is just unworkable. Plus, a lot of the routes won't get me where I need to go.

[Common Sense]

Electric cars are extremely complicated. They have a very inconvenient cruising range and the batteries are an environmental nightmare to dispose of. They are noisy and uncomfortable.

They are complex and batteries are a valid issue when it comes to the environment. However Tesla has created a closed loop recycling program for their batteries. Cruising ranges are steadily improving, but they are a big problem for me. 300 miles just isn't far enough. I did a solo road trip this summer and I'd do 600 miles a day with no issues.

Noisey and uncomfortable? I haven't heard those complaints.

[Tahuyaman]

When I worked for the county sheriff department, we had a few which were designated for administrative travel. This was only a few years ago. Nearly every time one used, the driver needed to be rescued as they broke down. They were noisy and uncomfortable pieces of trash. We ended up parking them and cease their use. The other county departments did the same.

[leekohler2]

Noisey and uncomfortable? I haven't heard those complaints.

I've heard the opposite.

[Common Sense]

When I worked for the county sheriff department, we had a few which were designated for administrative travel. This was only a few years ago. Nearly every time one used, the driver needed to be rescued as they broke down. They were noisy and uncomfortable pieces of trash. We ended up parking them and cease their use. The other county departments did the same.

What make were they?

Teslas certainly don't fit that description. They are very expensive now, but they are luxury vehicles. Riding in them you notice how very quiet they are. Eventually they will come down in price.

[Tahuyaman]

What make were they?

Teslas certainly don't fit that description. They are very expensive now, but they are luxury vehicles. Riding in them you notice how very quiet they are. Eventually they will come down in price.I'm not sure of the make. I believe they were a Chevrolet. I could be wrong on that. I know that they were not a Tesla.

[leekohler2]

What make were they?

Teslas certainly don't fit that description. They are very expensive now, but they are luxury vehicles. Riding in them you notice how very quiet they are. Eventually they will come down in price.

He's just telling stories. Teslas are pretty damn nice cars. And I doubt any local police department would be given a green light to buy them.

[Tahuyaman]

He's just telling stories. Teslas are pretty damn nice cars. And I doubt any local police department would be given a green light to buy them.

you should read a complete post before you post your drivel in response.

[Common Sense]

you should read a complete post before you post your drivel in response.
Do you know what make they were? I'm sure there are some shitty EV's out there. I could see a PD buying some as a public relations effort.

[Tahuyaman]

Do you know what make they were? I'm sure there are some $#@!ty EV's out there. I could see a PD buying some as a public relations effort.
I already said I think they were a Chevrolet, but I may be mistaken on that.

[Common Sense]

I already said I think they were a Chevrolet, but I may be mistaken on that.
Sorry, I missed that post.

[Peter1469]

While I agree with you, I do believe it's best to be proactive and address the contributions to AGW. But a big part of me sees combating it as unrealistic and that eventually alternative energy sources will solve the problem.

Disagree. To do what the climate cheer leaders what is cost prohibited.

Science will fix their problems long before their projected doom for earth comes.

[Peter1469]

We can agree to disagree.
Of course

[Peter1469]

Clearly you said that a semi truck needs 1000 gallons of fuel to travel st least 250 miles. That would be in the neighborhood of 5 gallons to the mile.

Semis generally gave a 250 to 300 gal fuel tank. Iv'e heard of some which carry 500 gallons of fuel. They get 5 miles per gallon or more. That's more than 1000 miles of cruising range.

The Tesla claims 200 to 300 miles range per charge. Hopefully increasing that to nearly 500 miles. That is not twice the cruising range as a deisel semi truck as you claimed.

If you misspoke or misread something just say so.
I didn't misspeak. There was nothing original about my post. I saw a news article on the topic this morning. I may have misread it. Or the article could have been b.s.

[Peter1469]

I agree, that's where I really see this going. But I heard somewhere that even you were in a driverless car and drunk, you'd still get arrested because you were not paying attention to the warnings a driverless car might give you.


There are just too many fun cars to drive. I'm lucky, because of the fact that I live in the city. I don't need a car, except to go to hockey rinks. I take the bus or train to work every day. I only have a car because trying to take gear on public trans is just unworkable. Plus, a lot of the routes won't get me where I need to go.

If I can't take a nap on the way home in a driver-less car, it is useless to me. I will never buy one under those conditions.

[Peter1469]

Do you know what make they were? I'm sure there are some shitty EV's out there. I could see a PD buying some as a public relations effort.
They should find someone in a Telsa with drugs on them and seize the car. :smiley:

[Tahuyaman]

If I can't take a nap on the way home in a driver-less car, it is useless to me. I will never buy one under those conditions.. I read a story about research into the creation of a guidance grid built into roads and highways. Program in your destination and it takes you there. I don't see it happening.

[Ethereal]

Electric motors in general, are more efficient technolgy. Do you see many manufacturing plants using internal combustion engines to drive their assembly lines? How many submarines are using internal combustion? Electric motors are lightyears more efficient than internal combustion engines. China is currently using what it has in abundance, but don't expect that they are not looking for cheaper alternatives. They are not tethered to the fossil fuel industry.

:rollseyes:

[Ethereal]

In the long run it does.

Increased demand makes prices go UP, not down. You are 100% wrong.

[Ethereal]

Not always. Increased demand can mean large increases in production that drive down manufacturing cost. Look at VCR's or flatscreen televisions. Initially they were very expensive, but as demand increased, prices dropped.
Yes, always. It is basic supply and demand. I cannot believe anyone would try to argue otherwise. But this is tPF, after all.

[Ethereal]

Do you think people will still be driving cars with gas engines in 100 years from now?

If we're lucky...

[Ethereal]

There are plenty of real things for us all to disagree about without making up bull$#@!.

Claiming anyone here "worships" government is not only false, but it indicates that you really don't understand those who you disagree with.

It's hyperbolic and not much different than claiming a conservative worships guns, the military industrial complex or tax cuts. Certainly I'm biased, but I do see this behaviour as being more prevalent on the right...at least here.

When someone acknowledges the value of government, they are accused of worshipping the government.

When someone calls for sensible gun control, they are labeled a gun grabber.

When someone advocates a social safety net or government programs, they are called a socialist or communist.

When someone acknowledges the issue of race and the criminal justice system, they're called a racist or cop hater.

When you acknowledge mistakes or disagree with things the US has done in the past, you are labeled anti American.

I could go on as there are many more examples. My point is this hyperbole isn't based in reality and the effect is further division and frankly it makes some people look ignorant. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of examples of some on the left doing the same thing...but I do think the right does it more.

Don't worry. Many "conservatives" worship the government as well, especially when it's throwing people in jail and bombing foreigners. It's a problem on both sides.

[Ethereal]

Personally, I hope there is always a place for machines like this in the world...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SKIesmGGPKI/maxresdefault.jpg

It would be tragic to see them go extinct just because some people have an irrational distaste for hydrocarbons.

[hanger4]

Has this pipeline been built yet?

The pipeline that leaked, of course.

[Safety]

Personally, I hope there is always a place for machines like this in the world...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SKIesmGGPKI/maxresdefault.jpg

It would be tragic to see them go extinct just because some people have an irrational distaste for hydrocarbons.

I'm sure at some point, someone looked at their horse and buggy the same way when the first model t rolled off the assembly line....

[Ransom]

Safety about to tell all of us how victimized he is by the automobile that takes him to work everyday. Bullshiit on, Safety, someone is crying for you somewhere.