Trump signs executive orders to advance Keystone XL, Dakota Access pipelines

visajoe1

Well-Known Member
a new tesla is only $35,000.......
View attachment 3888967
I asked your thoughts, not for a link. What do you really know?? What have you memorized from ads?? What do you want to believe?

The question everyone wants to know is, can they build them in time? They have over 350k pre-orders for those Tesla 3's, and they will sell more when released. The thing is, they only built 50k cars in 2015, and about 90k in 2016. They will magically ramp up to 250k+ in a year? What sort of growing pains could they expect? Would that affect customer service/sales/price? How do they build that many cars within 18 months? Who would want to wait for 2-3 years for a car to built, and be old technology by the time you receive it? Yes, Tesla keeps saying Fremont can make 500k/year, but that production level doesnt come right out of the gate.

Infrastructure. There isnt enough yet. Charging stations are very expensive and charge slowly, relative to fueling your tank, even the Superchargers take 75 minutes to get to 100%. Look up the stories from this past Christmas of wait times to charge. Its a horror show. To what? Have the opportunity to buy an overpriced car that leaves you potentially waiting hours to charge or stranded and needing abnormal emergency services (we cant just bring you a gallon of gas)?

Hydrogen fuel cell is where its at. Technology needs more time to learn how to use it more economically. Things like the potential discover of metallic hydrogen announced last week is another step in that direction.

All that said, if I had $50k disposable I would still buy a used one to drive around LA just for the carpool lanes. Ha!
 

visajoe1

Well-Known Member
View attachment 3888993

With Trump making clear the Dakota Access Pipeline will be completed in an expedited fashion, and authorizing Keystone XL ... the abject displays of ignorance about pipeline safety are resurging.

So rather than industry-wide statistics, lets look at a real world example ... a major pipeline and route located in one of the harshest and most diverse, and most ecologically important ... environments in the world ... the Trans-Alaska pipeline.

Certainly there are few, if any, other pipelines located in more harsh and challenging places anywhere.

How harsh is the Trans-Alaska's route and environment? Lets take a look:

Air Temperature Range Along Route: MINUS -80°F to +95°F.

Diameter of Pipe: 48 inches.

Elevations, Highest:
• Atigun Pass: 4,739 ft.
• Isabel Pass: 3,420 ft.
• Thompson Pass: 2,812 ft.

Grade, Maximum: 145% (55°) at Thompson Pass.

Length of Line: 800 miles (1,288 kilometers)

Mountain Ranges Crossed, North to South (three):
• Brooks Range,
• Alaska Range,
• Ahugach Range.

Right-of-Way Widths:
• Federal land: 54 ft. (buried pipe); 64 ft.
(elevated pipe).
• State land: 100 ft.
• Private land: 54 ft. to 300 ft.

River and Stream Crossings:
• 34 major,
• nearly 500 others.

EARTHQUAKE, In Nov 2002 the pipeline withstood a magnitude 7.9 Richter Scale earthquake that was centered along the Denali Fault in Interior Alaska, approximately 50 miles west of the pipeline. The quake was among the strongest earthquakes recorded in North America in the last 100 years.

So you ask .... HOW SAFE IS THE TRANS-ALASKA pipeline?

Since it began operation in 1977 - now 39 years - the Trans-Alaska - now Aleyska - pipeline:

• Has transported 17,455,737,760 barrels of crude oil.
• Has had on average 11.5 spills per year
• Each spill averaged 92.3 barrels
• A total average of just 1,064 barrels are spilled annually

Out of 17.46 Billion barrels of crude oil delivered in its 39 years an average of just 1,064 barrels annually have spilled from the Trans-Alaska pipeline ... a without incident delivery rate of 99.999762%

This is for a 48" crude oil pipeline built and operating in one of the most severe (and most ecologically sensitive) environments in the world ...

And those numbers are skewed by a couple high profile incidents of sabotage ....

• The single largest spill was the result of sabotage - an explosive charge set at Steele Creek that released 16,000 bbl ...

• And the 2nd largest was also sabotage ... when a drunk used repeated shots from a high powered rifle to breach a weld (more than 50 other gunshots to the pipeline failed to cause a leak) causing a spill of appx 6,142 barrels ... 4,238 barrels were directly recovered ... w/less than 2 acres impacted - which were fully cleaned up.

Take away these two acts of sabotage and over its 39 years and over the 17.46 billion barrels delivered by the Trans-Alaska pipeline there averaged just 11.47 spills per year with an avg spill of 43.3 barrels and a total average annual spill amount of 496 barrels ... an average 99.9999972% safety rating.

Further ... NO ONE can argue that the Trans-Alaska pipeline is in a far more severe environment than the Dakota Access Pipeline ... the Trans-Alaska Pipeline:

• Is almost entirely built above ground and exposed to the elements
• Crosses three mountain ranges, including the nearly mile high Atigun Pass
• Air Temperature Range Along Route: MINUS -80°F to +95°F.
• 34 major, and nearly 500 others river and stream crossings:
• AND travels directly thru an earthquake fault zone ... withstanding a 7.9 quake along its route in 2002 with no spill.

But we are supposed to believe the Dakota Access pipeline - with nearly 40 year newer technology, fully buried and protected from the elements and sabotage along essentially its entire route, and in an area with basically no earthquake threat ... is somehow going to experience massive risk of leaks ...

(A FB feed post)
Nice copy and paste. You do know the majority of Americans are for the pipeline right?
 

visajoe1

Well-Known Member
I don't know that.

Obama blocked Keystone in November 2015. In January 2015, CNN published their poll showing 57% approved. Only 28% approved.

In October 2015, the WaPo published a poll showing 55% support.

Seems to me, the protesters and copy and paster's are in the minority by 2:1 on this topic. Just FYI

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/politics/poll-majority-of-americans-back-keystone-pipeline/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/24/trump-gives-green-light-to-dakota-access-keystone-xl-oil-pipelines/?utm_term=.347e11d632af
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
I asked your thoughts, not for a link. What do you really know?? What have you memorized from ads?? What do you want to believe?

The question everyone wants to know is, can they build them in time? They have over 350k pre-orders for those Tesla 3's, and they will sell more when released. The thing is, they only built 50k cars in 2015, and about 90k in 2016. They will magically ramp up to 250k+ in a year? What sort of growing pains could they expect? Would that affect customer service/sales/price? How do they build that many cars within 18 months? Who would want to wait for 2-3 years for a car to built, and be old technology by the time you receive it? Yes, Tesla keeps saying Fremont can make 500k/year, but that production level doesnt come right out of the gate.

Infrastructure. There isnt enough yet. Charging stations are very expensive and charge slowly, relative to fueling your tank, even the Superchargers take 75 minutes to get to 100%. Look up the stories from this past Christmas of wait times to charge. Its a horror show. To what? Have the opportunity to buy an overpriced car that leaves you potentially waiting hours to charge or stranded and needing abnormal emergency services (we cant just bring you a gallon of gas)?

Hydrogen fuel cell is where its at. Technology needs more time to learn how to use it more economically. Things like the potential discover of metallic hydrogen announced last week is another step in that direction.

All that said, if I had $50k disposable I would still buy a used one to drive around LA just for the carpool lanes. Ha!
I have 2 tesla's on order....lol
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
I asked your thoughts, not for a link. What do you really know?? What have you memorized from ads?? What do you want to believe?

The question everyone wants to know is, can they build them in time? They have over 350k pre-orders for those Tesla 3's, and they will sell more when released. The thing is, they only built 50k cars in 2015, and about 90k in 2016. They will magically ramp up to 250k+ in a year? What sort of growing pains could they expect? Would that affect customer service/sales/price? How do they build that many cars within 18 months? Who would want to wait for 2-3 years for a car to built, and be old technology by the time you receive it? Yes, Tesla keeps saying Fremont can make 500k/year, but that production level doesnt come right out of the gate.

Infrastructure. There isnt enough yet. Charging stations are very expensive and charge slowly, relative to fueling your tank, even the Superchargers take 75 minutes to get to 100%. Look up the stories from this past Christmas of wait times to charge. Its a horror show. To what? Have the opportunity to buy an overpriced car that leaves you potentially waiting hours to charge or stranded and needing abnormal emergency services (we cant just bring you a gallon of gas)?

Hydrogen fuel cell is where its at. Technology needs more time to learn how to use it more economically. Things like the potential discover of metallic hydrogen announced last week is another step in that direction.

All that said, if I had $50k disposable I would still buy a used one to drive around LA just for the carpool lanes. Ha!
Have you seen the road traffic accident statistics for this country?

And you want everyone sitting on top of a tank of super high pressure hydrogen?

(That burns from mere exposure to oxygen)
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
You don't know very much about this.
"Right now, scientists don't know much about the material's properties. The whole experimental setup is still sitting under high pressure in the lab, waiting for the next tests.

"Our experience is that once you pressurize a set of diamonds to pressures above a million atmospheres, when you release the pressure, the diamonds break," Silvera said.

As such, the team doesn't yet know whether, as theory suggests, the metallic hydrogen is stable even if the pressure is removed."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lab-made-metallic-hydrogen-could-154100294.html
 

visajoe1

Well-Known Member
Im here to question silly statements. I prefer to learn, but I'm not getting anything back here except gif's, commericals, and BS claims. Is the earth still flat Rrog? Not sure why you all are so afraid to be wrong. I'm sure as hell not, I want to learn something everyday.

This is where someone will respond with some stupid comment about me "learning" I'm an idiot or something. I just laugh because these same folks are going to be applying to work flipping burgers for me in the next few months. :peace:
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
Im here to question silly statements. I prefer to learn, but I'm not getting anything back here except gif's, commericals, and BS claims. Is the earth still flat Rrog? Not sure why you all are so afraid to be wrong. I'm sure as hell not, I want to learn something everyday.

This is where someone will respond with some stupid comment about me "learning" I'm an idiot or something. I just laugh because these same folks are going to be applying to work flipping burgers for me in the next few months. :peace:
lol......
 

visajoe1

Well-Known Member
Scientists just developed a metal that conducts electricity but not heat (:.....here comes electricity:clap:.....thank you science......you do believe in science right?o_O
Very much so! This was an incredible find, read it last week. We'll see if the theory holds up under normal temps/pressures
 
Top