Ieee Article: Electric Cars Unclean at any Speed?

I agree, rail is more expensive and pipeline is less expensive. But let's be clear where the money goes, and who benefits. The oil companies want to build Keystone, it's theirs, they own it.
But to move by rail, they would follow the N. Dakota model, and hire a rail company, such as BNSF, to move it (not build one on their own). So who wins? Let's follow the money:

Gulf Coast refineries currently pay $100 for heavy crudes from Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela. All 3 arrive by ship.
So, a tar sands producer can collect $100 for each barrel he can get to the Gulf Coast.
But first, he must ship it.
Hire a rail company like BNSF - they will charge about $30/bbl. So, oil company nets about $70.
Send it via pipeline. It will cost about $10/bbl. So, oil company nets about $90. However, in this case it must also pay for the (1-time) construction costs of the pipeline. But the economics work out. Once the pipeline is paid, they keep getting $90 instead of $70, for decades to come.

Bottom line: pipelines mean higher profits per unit oil. But the total amount of oil produced depends on global price.
Because global price is currently so high, oil companies will move oil-by-rail....they just hate doing it, because they get less profit.

As far as moving oil by truck, I think this is pretty unheard of, except for extremely short distances. Most of the syncrude would leave the upgrader via a short-distance pipline that led to a rail terminal or larger, trans-continental pipeline.

 

i think the numbers are off, but yes, the oil companies and the canadian government would keep most of the money. We are in agreement here. I don't know if higher profits from US companies operating in canada would add to US tax revenue, or if they would keep the money overseas.

The big fight, whether the US buys Canadian oil sands syn-oil, appears to be over, just the method of transportation.

 

Strictly back-of-the-envelope

My guess is is that U.S. oil companies will benefit as well, adding marginally to tax revenue. This is due to them being able to take the tar sands and sell the resulting gasoline/diesel to whomever will pay them the most $$. (The Panama Canal is due to complete its expansion by 2015. This is exactly when they wanted Keystone built by. Coincidence? I think not! Seems like a great way to ship the oil to Asia, since the Pacific-bound pipeline is being blocked by Canadian environmentalists).
Not exactly very patriotic of them, but oh well, such is capitalism.


The problem I have with this entire debate is how much it exposes the misinformation and deception out there.
(1) The oil companies know that Keystone won't lower fuel prices or create many permanent jobs, but they try to sell it as such to a gullible public (Republicans), all so they can make higher profits, while we, the people pay higher fuel bills and bear the risks of spills. It's the Wall Street ethos of "Privatizing the gains, while socializing the losses."
(2) The protestors against Keystone could really use a lesson in Economics 101. Blocking it will have marginal effects on oil sands production, and it will get shipped in trains, which have a higher CO2 footprint than pipelines. Reminds me of when well-meaning-but-misguided environmentalists blocked nuclear power after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, resulting in even more coal plants

 

First of all, I'm not going to come on here and pretend that I'm an expert with a Ph.D in geology and civil engineering and environmental engineering all the other fields of study that this type of work involves. Personally I got a diploma in Information Technology and I work in the Telecommunications industry. However, I will rely on those voices I've heard that are in that community.

Here is what I've heard from the voices of true experts in the fields of this study over the past several years: rail transit does not cost more in the long term to build than pipeline. There are variations in the cost of equipment for rail transport, but there are also serious costs to the upkeep of a pipeline. After a few short years, pipelines have serious maintenance costs. Pumps (or whatever they are called, again I'm not the guy with the Ph.D who was describing this to me) do fail on occasion. Pipelines do rupture based on all kinds of conditions, and ruptures aren't always disasters, its the little leaks that count. They add up.

The amount of money, time, and energy devoted to the upkeep of a pipeline - if properly maintained - is a dubious argument. It doesn't cost that much to maintain rail cars (relative to pipeline maintenance). The honest fact is that the experts I've listened to have point blank said the data really isn't there to compare the cost of rail transport vs pipeline maintenance. There is a general theorization that both can be more expensive, depending on what happens. If just one major rupture occurs on a pipeline and it has to be repaired, that one repair could cost more than an entire series of rail cars, plus you have the downtime during the rupture repair where no oil can be pumped at all, whereas a damaged rail car can just be taken off the train and sent to a shop on its own. Again, the data is not there to prove pipelines are cheaper as you state.

On the contrary, after 10-15-20 years of use, pipelines become progressively more proned to failure. Over the long term, most people in the industry/field of study tend to think its cheaper to just replace the rail cars on an as-needed basis rather than invest into pipeline maintenance. While there isn't up front data for how much it costs in the short term (each pipeline can have radically different costs), the long term maintenance costs of a pipeline are usually more than a rail system of transport.

And I will have to admit, there are tradeoffs to both, because oil is dirty no matter how its transported. Rail cars can crash and leak - just look at what happened in Quebec just yesterday/earlier today - and that is a reality.

But, on the contrary, to repair and replace a mobile rail car is far easier than to shut an entire pipeline down for necessary repair. You can see oil dripping out of a rail car, you can't always see it coming out of a pipeline, and oil companies are notorious for not shutting down pipelines to do necessary repairs. The list of oil pipeline leaks is extensive, an they aren't uncommon.

And no where did I ever use the connotation evil. I think its more practical to do rail based on the experts that have described the pros and cons of each.

Rail transport has many benefits: it is competitive, it has multiple purposes (you can ship anything, not just oil, or even people can travel over rail), it is extremely mobile. You can change where your product ends up just by calling up a railroad and approving a shipment to be delivered over the line you wish to use. There *are* refineries in the USA that aren't located in Texas. Bottom line is that pipeline may or may not be cheaper to operate in the beginning years of operation, data isn't there to prove either/or as each pipeline is different and Keystone XL is a proprietary oil project, but data do suggest over the long term that rail is cheaper to maintain and less disruptive when maintenance is required (i.e. just send the rail car or cars having the issues off and snap on some newer cars, near instant fix).

And the point remains: Keystone XL oil is priced and traded on a world market even if its shipped to Texas. A great deal of that Canadian oil will still end up in tankers at the port of Houston, bound for China and India. This is a little known fact that the oil companies don't like to explain. I don't blame them, they are a for profit business, they aren't interested in selling just to the North American continent.

The governments of both nations - Canada and the USA - on *all* political spectrums keep saying they want to have more "domestic" supply and to keep the supply here, but that is a silly talking point. The USA is not going to isolate its economy and it won't keep the supply of oil here. The American government - under neither political party control - is going to have the capacity to tell an oil company that the oil shipped to Oklahoma and Texas through Keystone XL will actually remain in North America. The Canadian government doesn't care where the oil is sold, they will sell to China or India, they literally don't care. Its really only the American government that pretends to want it inside the borders of the USA, and even then no American politician is willing to stand up and create an isolated oil market just within the USA, and it isn't going to happen. Canada attempted to create a national, Canadian oil market separate from the world market in the early 1980's called the National Energy Policy. The NEP was controversial - mostly inside Alberta, where its still hated to this day - the policy lasted only a few short years before the international oil giants squashed it. The world oil market cannot be undone, it is what it is. I am not describing it as evil, but it is a factual point to state the international oil cartel is more powerful than the US or the Canadian government. The governments bow to them, its not the other way around. In 2013, it doesn't matter if its a Democrat, Republican, or in Canada's case a Conservative, Liberal, or NDP politician that tells you they want domestic oil. They don't answer to voters, they have to bow down to what industry wants because the world market is more powerful than the voting booth at this point.

So I tend to ignore the political argument that Keystone XL is about keeping oil here. Oil is simply traded on a world market, and tankers will be leaving Houston with a refined product for any market in the world. It may end up at a gas station in Peoria or Albequerque... Or it may end up in Shanghai or Hong Kong. AND if it isn't physically traded and sent to China or India, its traded electronically on Wall Street and virtually sent there. The price does not come down, the price doesn't change with Keystone XL. Especially since rail will get the product where it needs to be even if its not built.

This is something that needs to rise above petty political debates, because there is zero reason to support Keystone XL if you think its going to keep oil inside this continent or that it will affect oil prices in a serious way. It will still leave, it will still be priced on the world market. There is no American oil market for price control purposes.

The only real debate to have with Keystone XL is whether rail is better to transport it or if pipeline is more environmentally friendly and better for transport. I lean toward rail transport strongly and I'm not convinced Keystone XL will matter or be beneficial to anyone except the contracts TransCanada deals with.

In the end, it'll make executives at TransCanada richer, or it'll make the rail industry richer. Keystone XL is just one delivery option to deliver the same oil to the same world oil market. Keystone XL won't change the price of oil one bit. People keep shouting down each others' throats for the wrong reason on this debate. I think rail is the obvious choice as it has multiple purposes. Lets say in 20 years we finally transition away from oil, those rail line investments will be worth something for other purposes. In 20 years, a rusty old pipeline from Alberta will just be making the ground contaminated that much more and will never be ripped up.

 

I didn't even read your post before posting mine.

You're 100% spot-on. The world oil price remains consistent regardless what method is used, so the discussions surrounding price are irrelevant, as are the discussions around keeping us on a domestic source (oil will still be sold off wherever the oil market damn well pleases, they answer to no one, not Washington and not Ottawa). With the way Wall Street works, everything is manipulated. Price manipulation on the oil market is the norm, not the exception. Anyone noticed how radically it changes for absolutely no reason, without regard to supply and demand? LOL Even if oil doesn't leave US or Canadian shores, it can be traded off electronically anyway.

The real point is whether the oil industry gets even richer, or if its the rail companies that benefit by delivering a product with multiple purposes.

And I've already discussed the long term vs short term investment costs. Railroad may very well cost slightly more on the front end, but the long term it most certainly doesn't.

And all this discussion on trucks vs rail vs pipeline leads me back to one constant about oil: its a dirty product that requires immense carbon burn just to transport. Electric energy can be transported at the speed of light from the source to your battery located at any home or parking lot when we get the charger infrastructure installed. Sure, battery technology isn't cheap enough and high capacity enough to go mass market just yet, but when it is, we can kiss the black death goodbye. Why build a pipeline that will be irrelevant and useless in 20-30 years?

 

2015 is a very important year, hence why Keystone XL may live or die by that year. Canadian government may change hands, the new Panama Canal opens. I had completely forgotten about the Canal expansion project, someone had mentioned that to me before, but really the USA can play a key role right now by stalling the project until 2015 and letting the Canadians decide with their new government what the next course of action will be.

If most people only understood how oil markets work, they'd realize the reason why Houston is specifically where they want the vast majority of the oil to go is so the oil can be setup for exports. Keystone XL doesn't primarily end up in refineries in the interior USA, its in Houston for a reason. Houston can ship it out to the Gulf and go anywhere in the world with the oil.

 

I googled a map as well, while the Gulf is clearly king of refining, its clear that Houston isn't the only place oil needs to go for domestic refining.



And while I'm at it, here's a Canadian map:
http://canadianfuels.ca/userfiles/image/MAP_2012%20EN.jpg

 

Unclean at any speed, really?

Toyota The Future

 

Well its hard to see the refinery locations above, but I think a number of the Northeast refineries are closed now. I think VA is closed, not shown above is USVirgin Islands (HOVENSA closed) and ARUBA (closed last time I checked). Also I am thinking about half of the PA/NJ/DE grouping above are closed now.

 

I'm sorry, but does it take a phd in civil engineering to decide that $20 is less than $5?
Trains will move tar sands oil, if the Keystone XL doesn't | Marketplace.org

Now you may object to the state departments figures on Keystone, but that is where you need to start, not this hand waving gibberish that the canadian government want to build this thing despite it being more expensive. Perhaps the state department is off by a factor of 2 and pipeline will cost half as much as rail in stead of 25%. WE have solid numbers from moving the oil by train now, and the cost will likely go up in the future, not down, they do get powered by people and diesel and salaries and oil costs go up.

You of course haven't looked at what is happening to refineries either. The east coast refineries are being closed down, not upgraded to handle heavier oils. California is being regulated to not use heavier oils with LCFS. That means you don't buy much in terms of flexibility by spending 4x more for transport. This savings does not get passed along to consumers, but is mainly kept by the oil companies and canadian government.

Killing The Keystone Pipeline Won't Stop The Oil Sands Being Mined - Forbes

 

^You're relying on a single article by non-experts whereas I am just repeating what some experts have said without being an "expert" myself. That $20 vs $5 comparison is using questionable data I'd think.

But again, you're free to believe its that much cheaper if you buy the arguments the oil industry funds and puts forth. I do not think the oil industry is evil at all, but they are self-interested like all business. They will fund all kinds of studies with data that are inaccurate to prove that they need to own the process from A to Z, I am not in line with that opinion.

I'm not going to dictate how you receive information, its just not the information that I have found to be appropriate to this discussion. You are free to select the information you want to read, but be sure to keep an open mind and don't rely on Wall Street publications, they tend to just pluck think tank data funded by oil industry. I'd rely on peer studied reviews from the sciences and education community first.

One thing I have said before and will say over and over again: people get at each others' throats for absolutely no reason. There's no reason to have such tainted, toxic debate over this pipeline. Railroad will be transporting oil whether Keystone XL exists or not. The oil will get to market regardless whether TransCanada gets its dream pipeline or not. The world market for oil price will not significantly change whether Keystone XL is built or not.

The transport of the oil will be cheap enough to be profitable at the world oil price regardless whether this pipeline is built or not. Just because Keystone XL isn't built - if it ends up failing - doesn't mean that oil won't be flowing to US refineries or Chinese refineries. It'll just find a different way of getting there (via rail/ships).

I dislike the notion that not allowing Keystone XL is some block to the progress of humanity as the holy grail to limitless cheap oil that will drastically drop the world market price of the product, which is how some political groups and business interests frame the debate. And on the other side of the coin, if the pipeline is stopped dead in its tracks, that doesn't halt the flow of Alberta tar sands oil. Stopping Keystone XL doesn't solve the vast environmental issues surrounding tar sands oil, so anti-pipeline groups shouldn't see it as a victory for the environment (I laugh when voices say that if Keystone XL is built, its "game over").

Hence why the debate really shouldn't be as heated as its gotten. I am obviously leaning against Keystone XL for the above mentioned reasons, but if its built I'm not going to cry over spilled milk. LOL Electric technology can and will replace black gold when it becomes feasible, and we're headed toward that road already. Battery technology is getting cheaper, more efficient, and better every month of every year. Tesla is already building the cars that demonstrate we'll be driving in the future, we just need them to be $20k instead of $60k.

 

I have a hard time believing that all Northeast refineries are shut down, or are in the process of shutting down. Then again, I just found the map via google, so if you have more information that'd be great.

 

While pushing every ounce of minutia out of tangentially related cost issue differences of carbon v renewable electricity - there are other methods to store clean (or dirty) electricity (btw ... are you talking residential roof PV ... which decreases transmission loss to nil? ). Electricity can be stored via compressed air during the night when grid demand drops. Already, water gets pumped back up hill at night in some regions - only to get run back through hydro electric generation cycles during day times. Battery costs (especially ones built on massive grid scale) are very cost prohibitive with present day tech - and with energy costs (vis a vis carbon fuel production) only going up ... battery (chemical energy) storage costs will only continue to go up. Battery tech/practicality doesn't continue to increase exponentially like computer memory.
.

 

I am quite sorry that you feel this way. I only posted one of the links, showing cost. There are many others. Keystone is offering longterm contracts as every pipeline does. If the figures are wrong Keystone simply loses money. There is plenty of historical information on pipeline costs, and current information on Rail costs. You make it sound like you are unwilling to educate yourself on the subject, so you are simply passing along bad information that you have heard from a friend, or a blog from someone with no knowledge. Please at least read up some on costs before claiming the costs are the same.

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. If the oil companies decrease costs, then they increase profits and the Canadian government increases its tax revenues. I don't think the oil companies or Canadian government have a reason to invest in a scheme to decrease their profits and tax revenue. It certainly does not help them politically. You can claim they are incompetent, and your sources know better, but please show your sources.

But you have just said I shouldn't listen to Forbes, or the US state department, or business publications, or Oil companies. Can you give me the sources of information you are telling me to listen to? You have given 0 figures on costs and 0 links to back up your POV. I am sure if you start reading real news instead of blogs your opinions may change. If you are just amplifying blogger information without checking it out, you are contributing to misunderstanding of the issues.

 

^^Just another example of technology not yet tapped enough. I've never heard of air compressors, but I am aware of water pumping systems to take renewable energy to pump water to a reservoir location during peak production usage so that the hydro could generate when wind or solar isn't available.

This is the true future of generation: smart technology, newer methods, and true innovations.

^austin, I feel like we're going in circles. I really don't know what else to say. You believe it costs far less to build the pipeline and that somehow will translate into cheaper oil, from what I understand?

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Keystone XL will not lower oil prices, it may potentially create a cheaper way for the oil company to deliver the product to refineries as they will own the production from A to Z, instead of some of those profits going to rail or other industries. I think its better to diversify the industry and get at least some profits mixed around the system, rail can benefit everyone instead of just one single purpose. What better way to improve our railroad tracks than to use this as incentive?!? It won't be government investment, so I'm all for private dollars enhancing the railroads where possible. This is my personal preference.

Whether the oil industry gets all the money, or the profits from Alberta oil are shared some with the transport via rail industry, it really doesn't matter at the end of the day. I think Keystone XL is going to be environmentally damaging more than rail, I think it will be useless in 20 years when electric cars mature and become viable, and I don't support the pipeline in a general sense. You're free to disagree, I don't feel sorry about the discussion either way. You're free to believe as you wish, I'm more interested in buying a fully electrified car when it becomes feasible for me to do so. Whether Alberta oil is delivered via rail or pipeline is really irrelevant in the long term, I want to do away with it altogether when I can.

As a last statement, you don't seem to have read what I've actually typed. I'm regurgitating some information I've read from real experts and peer reviewed studies in the sciences and educational community. I'm not reading "blogs" and reducing my intake of information. In all honesty, I don't know where all you go for information, I just encourage you to think outside the box and consider more information than what you've displayed here.

Just the fact that you don't seem to understand Keystone XL won't lower the price of oil on the world market tells me you're missing the bigger picture here. Or at least, you've not admitted that you understand this if you do understand it, or maybe I need to re-read your comments.

 

I don't think there is any truely clean electricity. There is black, brown, and green electricity. Unless you are off grid with battery back up, there is some brown (natural gas) energy at a minimum backing you up and maintaining grid reliability. Those solar panels and wind turbines take energy to produce and maintain.

The facts are we have a great deal of black and brown and not much green, and maybe we have some radioactive The facts are liquid fuels are getting dirtier with more unconventional oil, while the grid is getting cleaner. Adding more green, and replacing older fossil fuel plants like small coal and gas thermal with natural gas ccgt makes means less impact. Electrifying the fleet by charging at night can help pay for cleaning up the grid. Plug-ins on smart meters can bufer wind, and don't use ogcc, but often make thermal plants more efficient.

Lithium tech seems to be decreasing in cost by a factor of 7%/year, it is not as fast as memory, but it is currently exponential. Its easiest to see on your lap top or cell phone. Look at how much batteries have improved in the last 15 years. We have some battery pilot projects in west texas to buffer wind for short periods of time it takes natural gas turbines to spin up. Fixed fuel cells and compressed air are also being tried. At least on ERCOT there is not hydro that can be used for pumped storage, but this is available in california and the pacific northwest.

Bottom line is grid is getting cleaner, gasoline and diesel are getting more dirty. If you compare in most of the country bev and phev make sense from an environmental point of view. The author made some really bad assumptions.

 

BTW, it is a bit ironic that in the middle of this discussion a huge tragedy happened in Quebec this weekend. Its been overshadowed in the US media because of the plane crash in San Francisco, but...

Death toll rises to 5 after Lac-Mégantic train blasts - Montreal - CBC News

I am well aware of the dangers of oil transport via rail, it isn't perfect either, and this is one example of that.

So I'm not saying its a perfect method that is absolutely perfect in every way. Oil has drawbacks no matter where you store and transport it.

 

So here we are, discussing oil via rail, and then this happens:
Unattended train rolls into Canadian town center, kills 5 - CNN.com

Very sad, but shows that rail isn't without risk either. Obviously, accidents happen, I just thought the timing was rather weird (as sad/painful the accident itself is).

 

That is absoutely not what I said.

What I said, which is what the State department of the US, and the Canadian government have said, is it will cost less to transport the oil through a pipeline than on rail. The pipeline will have a higher up front cost, but a lower operating cost, making the total cost - construction plus operation- lower for the freight carried. It will also take less oil, but perhaps more natural gas, to power the transport.

IMHO this will not change the non spiked price of refined products to consumers at all. Long term contracts will reduce the impact of oil spikes caused by instability in the middle east, whether the oil comes on rail, truck, or pipeline.

Do you think the US government should be creating laws that helps rail road owners versus oil companies and the canadian government? I would rather have a small government, than one that makes these decisions. I do not see how having more oil on railroads benefits anyone but the owners of those railroads, and the extra employees they hier. This in exchange for not highering construction workers for the short term, which may actually help the US pull out of this poor economy. I have seen no data that moving more oil by rail will lower prices for passengers or other freight. That is simply wishful thinking, instead of realizing the rail roads are less efficient. Also if costs are higher because of say Berkshire hathoway eiher taking more profit, or rail inefficiency, i don't see that as a positive for the average american. At least if the government ties keystone to a bill to kill oil subsidies the american people end up winners.

 

^Again, we're just talking in circles. I've already said the data isn't there to prove the pipeline is cheaper (you're stating you know it will be), over the long term actually rail generally tends to be cheaper because of pipeline upkeep. Pipeline wears out, it gets leaky, the pressurization damages the integrity of it. It isn't a build it once and its done project, the the problem I have with oil companies is that they tend to not upkeep the line and they allow leaks to happen.

I agree to disagree with you on that point.

In terms of your support of Keystone XL, you've been unclear. You seem to have stated you think it'll be cheaper, but now you admit it won't lower oil prices, so you support it because you just think oil companies should have no regulation?

If so, that's a legitimate position, but it isn't one I agree with. I prefer environmental protection first. And I don't see an environmental or economic benefit to building Keystone XL. It makes the oil company richer, yes, but it doesn't lower oil prices and the leaky oil that seeps out over time is more dangerous than rail. Despite the example we have from Quebec just yesterday, rail overall has a better environmental safety record vs pipelines that leak. If the government needs to block the construction of a pipeline to have priority in favor of the environment, yes I disagree with you on the role of government. I tend to believe the only power that people have over private mega-industry is the power in the ballot box. If you ignore the legitimate role of government, you're taking away the free choice of people to say they don't want environmental pollution that has a serious cost to public society.