Is the link between KXL pipeline and the Koch brothers as big as my facebook newsfeed suggests?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Measure_for_Measure

You don’t need energy storage techniques if you offset changes in wind power with a variable output natural gas plant.

Maybe I’m not familiar with the technology you are talking about but isn’t your variable output natural gas plant replacing cheap natural gas energy with moderately priced wind energy?

This is especially true when wind is thin sliver of the total. Ditto for solar, whose price is dropping fast. But yeah, natural gas is the up and coming electrical power source, though coal also remains pretty strong unfortunately.

Coal will continue to be burned, if not here then in China and other developing countries. We need a clean technology that is competitive with coal in order to kill coal.

But I support a small nuclear construction program (which we now have) and doubling it would leave me less than horrified.

20% of our electricity is generated by nuclear. I think this higher but I don’t think we need much more than 20% to achieve some level of energy diversity.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Keystone news:

Today the State Dept report was edited to increase the number of deaths attributable to rail crashes associated with that mode of shipment: it would lead to 434 deaths and 2947 injuries over a decade. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/06/usa-keystone-rail-idUSL1N0OG0ZX20140606
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/07/us/report-finds-higher-risks-if-oil-line-is-not-built.html

Maximilian Auffhammer, the George Pardee Associate Professor of International Sustainable Development at the University of California Berkeley, estimates that not building the Keystone XL, “will likely leave a billion barrels worth of bitumen in the ground.”:

[INDENT]The problem the owners of this precious resource have is that there simply so much of it and currently there is nowhere near enough transport capacity to get the desired number of barrels to refineries. This is not news. What I argue below, however, is that even if every pipeline project on record is built on time and rail capacity is expanded aggressively, there still is not enough transport capacity to meet industry projected supply.

…My calculations suggest that not permitting Keystone XL will result in a binding transport constraint by 2024 at the very latest. … While this post does not conduct an oil industry wide equilibrium analysis, it suggests that not permitting Keystone XL to proceed will keep a minimum of one billion barrels of heavy crude from Canadian bitumen in the ground by 2030 – in the absence of additional transport or refining projects. Of course, globally speaking, 1 billion barrels sounds like a lot, but the US consumes that amount in about 50 days.[/INDENT]

One ton of CO2 is produced by 3.15 barrels of crude oil. Let’s do some rough cost benefit. A $5 - $10 million valuation of a statistical life gives us a range of $2.2 - 4.3 billion of safety benefits from building the pipeline. If we assign a cost of $10 - $100 per ton of CO2, then the costs of additional CO2 emissions are $3.2 - $31.7 billion. There’s some overlap there and these calculations are rough (I didn’t total costs of injuries for example). Also, I might want to multiply my CO2 emissions by 14-20%, which is the additional emissions entailed in production from tar sands. That would give us $0.4 - $6.3 billion in CO2 costs. I’ll opine that the true value is nearer to the lower end of both cost and benefit ranges.

My call is that these non-comprehensive comparisons favor building the pipeline. 0.4 < 2.2, by a factor of over 5. YMMV. (BTW, I wasn’t sure how this exercise was going to turn out.)

@Damuri_Ajashi

Maybe I’m not familiar with the technology you are talking about but isn’t your variable output natural gas plant replacing cheap natural gas energy with moderately priced wind energy?

That’s my understanding, but they work in tandem. Article: http://www.nationaljournal.com/new-energy-paradigm/wind-and-natural-gas-best-friends-worst-enemies-20131124

Coal will continue to be burned, if not here then in China and other developing countries. We need a clean technology that is competitive with coal in order to kill coal.

Well… China is big on nuclear power and is pursuing clean energy with more than symbolic effort. Coal is very dirty, so our clean technology only has to compete with coal-fired plants with scrubbers et al installed. Dirty Chinese air is becoming a political problem for the Communist overlords. And if we get the sort of Co2 emission charges that the technocrats like, that would tilt things in favor of nukes, solar, wind and natural gas.

20% of our electricity is generated by nuclear. I think this higher but I don’t think we need much more than 20% to achieve some level of energy diversity.

Doubling nuclear construction would still involve a phase out of nuclear in the US, or at least that’s my impression.

[Measure_for_Measure]

ETA! I changed my mind. I personally value CO2 emissions at closer to $100/ton, but practically speaking I suspect that any politically feasible level will start at around $20. So I guess I’m against Keystone then (6.3>4.3), though I would think that the median voter preference would support passage (~1.0<2.2+) . Or something like that. I’ll end with my quoted expert, Maximilian Auffhammer:

[INDENT]As carbon is a stock pollutant as far as human time frames are concerned, not permitting Keystone “buys time” for alternative transportation fuels and climate policies to develop. This would allow all transportation fuels to compete on a level playing field, where carbon is taxed at its marginal external cost, which is a comprehensive policy solution. Trying to cure this large-scale burn with thousands of Band-Aids is simply not an efficient approach.[/INDENT]

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Measure_for_Measure

Today the State Dept report was edited to increase the number of deaths attributable to rail crashes associated with that mode of shipment: it would lead to 434 deaths and 2947 injuries over a decade…

Maximilian Auffhammer, the George Pardee Associate Professor of International Sustainable Development at the University of California Berkeley, estimates that not building the Keystone XL, "
…My calculations suggest that not permitting Keystone XL will result in a binding transport constraint by 2024 at the very latest.

They seem to be talking about different time periods

… While this post does not conduct an oil industry wide equilibrium analysis, it suggests that not permitting Keystone XL to proceed will keep a minimum of one billion barrels of heavy crude from Canadian bitumen in the ground by 2030

What would those State Dept numbers look like projected out to 2030?

[quote]
– in the absence of additional transport or refining projects. Of course, globally speaking, 1 billion barrels sounds like a lot, but the US consumes that amount in about 50 days.[/INDENT][/INDENT]

And frankly, by 2030, I suspect that we may have much less use for oil than we do today.

One ton of CO2 is produced by 3.15 barrels of crude oil.

Doesn’t that assume that there is about 100% release of the carbon in the crude?

@Measure_for_Measure

[INDENT]As carbon is a stock pollutant as far as human time frames are concerned, not permitting Keystone “buys time” for alternative transportation fuels and climate policies to develop. This would allow all transportation fuels to compete on a level playing field, where carbon is taxed at its marginal external cost, which is a comprehensive policy solution. Trying to cure this large-scale burn with thousands of Band-Aids is simply not an efficient approach.[/INDENT]

If its not a constraining factor until 2024, aren’t we buying time beyond the point when we will need that time? After all, everyone keep assuring us that we can start to abandon oil production and transportation because all this other technology is around the corner.

I think that as long as oil prices are as high as they are, the market will find a way to get that oil to market, all you can really do is increase the cost of doing that.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Damuri_Ajashi

They seem to be talking about different time periods. What would those State Dept numbers look like projected out to 2030?

I’m not surprised my calculation was off. The Reuter’s article suggested they were using per year numbers. I’m going to make some arbitrary assumptions: say the pipeline is completed on Jan 2016. That gives 15 years through 2030 (not 10 as I calculated). So up my range to $3.3 - $6.5 of safety benefits. That’s actually high enough either to tip me in the other direction (build the pipeline) or more likely call it a tie.

Doesn’t that assume that there is about 100% release of the carbon in the crude?

Well, most of it won’t be used for lubrication and the like. There are also important distinctions between CO2 taxes and carbon taxes. So there’s another source of possible error.

After all, everyone keep assuring us that we can start to abandon oil production and transportation because all this other technology is around the corner.

I very much think that oil production will be with us for a while. Solar is becoming competitive, but that only means that we can start to displace oil production: I suspect the bulk of the work will be completed well after 2030. Musk is a great man, but it will be a while before we have a sufficient network to support hundreds of millions of electric cars.

I think that as long as oil prices are as high as they are, the market will find a way to get that oil to market, all you can really do is increase the cost of doing that.

Via rail? Without laying new tracks? Bottlenecks and choke points can be very real when ramping up production throughput.
Anyway, I’m back on the fence. If I thought that opposing Keystone could accelerate the date that we would have a rational CO2 policy (with emission charges of some kind) then I would oppose it instantly. But I don’t really believe that. Given my biases in the event of a tie I tend to favor the “Talk, modify, then build” scenario. But we’ve already completed the delay part. So personally I’m lukewarm in favor, pending a review of a real study as opposed to my jackass calculation, whose error ranges are way too large to be considered definitive.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Measure_for_Measure

Well, most of it won’t be used for lubrication and the like.

Asphalt is one of the products that you get more of with heavy crudes. I’m going to guess that a lot of the extra carbon you get from heavier crudes ends up as asphalt and lubrication. I’m going to guess that even with medium crudes, a lot of the carbon ends up as asphalt and lubrication. I don’t know enough about how combustion works to know if all the carbon ends up mated to oxygen in gaseous form. If you tell me its 3.15 barrels per ton of CO2, I’ve got no reason to argue, just wanted to make sure you were thinking about things like asphalt.

I very much think that oil production will be with us for a while. Solar is becoming competitive, but that only means that we can start to displace oil production: I suspect the bulk of the work will be completed well after 2030. Musk is a great man, but it will be a while before we have a sufficient network to support hundreds of millions of electric cars. Via rail? Without laying new tracks? Bottlenecks and choke points can be very real when ramping up production throughput.

The average life of a car is perhaps 10 or 15 years. Once the technology makes sense, why would it take longer than that to replace the vast majority of our fleet.

Anyway, I’m back on the fence. If I thought that opposing Keystone could accelerate the date that we would have a rational CO2 policy (with emission charges of some kind) then I would oppose it instantly. But I don’t really believe that. Given my biases in the event of a tie I tend to favor the “Talk, modify, then build” scenario. But we’ve already completed the delay part. So personally I’m lukewarm in favor, pending a review of a real study as opposed to my jackass calculation, whose error ranges are way too large to be considered definitive.

Well, I still hold out hope that we will get electric battery technology developed quickly enough that we don’t give a shit what happens in the middle east any more than we care what happens in any other part of the world before my kid is old enough to drive or get drafted.