XPost: talk.politics.guns, misc.transport.road, misc.transport.trucking
On 6/11/2021 8:51 PM, Shobith wrote:
In article <Z7SwI.120602$Sx7.101198@fx18.iad>
Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
On 6/11/2021 3:46 PM, Molly Bolt wrote:
On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 2:16:58 PM UTC-5, Yak wrote:
On 6/10/21 3:03 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 10:57:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:
The company behind the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline said Wednesday
it's officially terminating the project. TC Energy already had suspended >>>>>> construction in January when President Biden revoked a key cross-border >>>>>> presidential permit. The announcement ends a more than decade-long battle that
came to signify the debate over whether fossil fuels should be left in the
ground to address climate change.
Environmentalists opposed the pipeline in part because of the oil it would carry
— oil sands crude from Alberta. It requires more processing than most oil, so
producing it emits more greenhouse gases.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/09/1004908006/developer-abandons-keystone-xl-pipeline-project-ending-decade-long-battle
It was always a bad idea.
A million barrels a day is more than the capacity of the controversial >>>>> Keystone XL pipeline, 830,000 barrels — a fact that has led some oil
industry analysts to declare that heavy crude from Alberta’s tar sands
will find a way to refineries regardless of Keystone XL’s fate. Even
The New York Times has supported this claim. An October 30 Times news >>>>> story, headlined “Looking for a Way Around Keystone XL, Canadian Oil
Hits the Rails,†said, “Even if President Obama rejects the pipeline,
it might not matter much†because of rail’s emergence.
See how stupid you look, Rudy?
Why use a clean pipeline,
Please englighten us as to an example of a "clean" oil pipeline.
which even the administration admits is
better, when truck after CO2 farting truck can be used instead!!!
Rail, NOT trucks will replace the pipelines, and trains require much less power to MAINTAIN a fixed speed than a truck (even if more much more energy is required to accelerate the train to a given speed), making them more fuel-efficient than trucks
over a large distance, and since many trains are augmented by electric power or are completely electric, they are more environmentally sound that a farting truck or trumptard.
"Electric locomotives are ideal for commuter rail service with
frequent stops. Electric locomotives are used on freight routes
with consistently high traffic volumes, or in areas with advanced
rail networks."
"The chief disadvantage of electrification is the high cost for
infrastructure: overhead lines or third rail, substations, and
control systems. ... Because railroad infrastructure is
privately owned in the U.S., railroads are unwilling to make
the necessary investments for electrification."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_locomotive
For the type of long-haul cross-country freight used to transport
oil, locomotive engines use diesel engines (i.e. fossil fuel) to
power on-board generators which supply the energy to the electric
motors that turn the wheels. These engines are actually diesel,
not electric. And yes, diesel freight trains are still more fuel
efficient than diesel trucks.
You cannot eliminate fossil products. Electricity cannot
lubricate moving parts. Plant lubricants are not suitable
for all purposes.
I agree, but your example doesn't support the argument. When
oil is used as a lubricant, it isn't burned, i.e. it is not
a fuel. The same with plastics. Oil used to make a plastic
whatever is not burned so is not a fuel.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)