Clint r
Well-Known Member
It's happening naturally now.
More and more people are... let's say choosing a different way to live.
Last edited:
Kinder Morgan IPO and $25/barrel oil (MSNBC)
- Thread starter seascene
- Start date
- Status
It's happening naturally now.
More and more people are... let's say choosing a different way to live.
GLG
Well-Known Member
So the next question is what to do with all those batteries once the car wears out or is in a wreck. Here is what is happening with Daimler.
World's largest second-use battery storage unit prepped for grid connection
November 9, 2015
As electric cars come towards the end of their life, they create a set of problems that you simply don't get with petrol cars - namely, getting rid of the batteries. Automotive giant Daimler is doing its bit to tackle the problem by partnering with The Mobility House, GETEC and Remondis to create a 13-MWh battery storage unit out of second-life battery systems from electric and plug-in hybrid cars.
These companies have worked to map out the process of battery creation and recycling in Lünen in the Westphalian region of Germany. Daimler provides its electric vehicle customers with a 10 year battery life guarantee, but reports that there's still a good deal of life in the cells beyond this point.
The company estimates that such batteries should offer at least another 10 years of usefulness when employed in stationary storage systems, which are said to be key in helping to level out dips in the energy supply coming from renewable sources like wind farms and solar power stations.
This is a role that's partially played by fossil-fuel power plants at the moment, so Daimler says the battery system will help to "speed up the energy revolution and eliminates the cost of expanding the grid and building new power plants."
The battery storage unit will be connected to the grid in early 2016.
World's largest second-use battery storage unit prepped for grid connection
November 9, 2015
As electric cars come towards the end of their life, they create a set of problems that you simply don't get with petrol cars - namely, getting rid of the batteries. Automotive giant Daimler is doing its bit to tackle the problem by partnering with The Mobility House, GETEC and Remondis to create a 13-MWh battery storage unit out of second-life battery systems from electric and plug-in hybrid cars.
These companies have worked to map out the process of battery creation and recycling in Lünen in the Westphalian region of Germany. Daimler provides its electric vehicle customers with a 10 year battery life guarantee, but reports that there's still a good deal of life in the cells beyond this point.
The company estimates that such batteries should offer at least another 10 years of usefulness when employed in stationary storage systems, which are said to be key in helping to level out dips in the energy supply coming from renewable sources like wind farms and solar power stations.
This is a role that's partially played by fossil-fuel power plants at the moment, so Daimler says the battery system will help to "speed up the energy revolution and eliminates the cost of expanding the grid and building new power plants."
The battery storage unit will be connected to the grid in early 2016.
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Yeah Im not the most let's say subtle guy in the crowd and I'm not looking to argue.
Yes your point is valid . Another way to look at it would be to say those bureaucrats your talking about were elected by the same people who want to drive EVs or reduce their carbon footprint or countless other things to help "green up" the planet.
gunnerlove
Well-Known Member
I like the article where the $140K car is better than the beaters he was used to.
Shocking.
Shocking.
Only if you consider corruption "natural", and unaccountable. Nothing "free" about the $700B bail-out, neither...
GLG
Well-Known Member
At one time the Calgary Herald use to be a good news paper, sadly it seem to have degressed to serving up red meat for the base. It's true that BC does get oil from the KM pipeline for use and export through a terminal on the coast but that terminal can also import crude also. I hear that there is a glut of oil out there and world shippers are looking for new clients. Do you think that Alberta could stop BC from importing oil from someone else? It's true that BC sends most of it NG to Alberta and it's our biggest client. The question is who is using that gas? It turns out that our biggest client is the heavy oil industry. Do you think that they would like to see that supply cut off? It's true that BC is a port city that ships and receives products for all over the planet. You think that the rest of Canada would sit back a wait for there iPhone as it is stalled at the Alberta border? How about all the agricultural products that are produced in Western Canada? Do you think that the other provinces would look kindly on this bright idea coming from this "thinker"?
GLG
Well-Known Member
That will be the day that this guy from Texas will tell BC what it can or cannot do.
From the article.......
"Despite the uncertain political environment in B.C. — not to mention myriad protests and legal challenges — Anderson brushed off concerns the project would be delayed and said he doesn’t see any possibility of it being shelved.
“I’m not foreseeing any, any difficulty in the construction start this fall,” he said.
The company will be respectful of peaceful protests, he added, calling them “fair game for anybody.” However, if people choose to break the law, Kinder Morgan will have the authorities take care of it, he said.
“We are well-prepared.”
In the U.S., protesters camped out for several months to oppose the Dakota Access oil pipeline but ultimately failed to stop the project from going ahead."
I wonder if he will use the same tactics we saw down south. If so he might be in for one heck of a surprise.
Last edited:
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Yep. When I hear Notley and her crowd start the threats I can't help think of Oka Quebec. Govt thought it was gonna expropriate some land and sell to a developer to build a golf course. Turns out it only took 70 people to stand their ground and force their hand. Unfortunately 2 died but the end result was it cost the Feds millions and a lot of bad press. And in the end... no golf course and the people won. I know there's a world of difference between there and here and pipelines and golf courses but at heart the principles the same. Try and force something that people don't want and things could get ugly. In BC we have a lot of radicals and there's no doubt in my mind that when push comes to shove there's gonna be a lot of surprised polititions. Just ask Christie.
Last edited:
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Not to mention the obvious fact that with an economy that's already tanked Alberta can't really afford to cut off any paying customer. Which ties into the "make them pay" plan. If the pipeline does go through we can hope Horgan hits them in the pocket book. You want to pipe oil through BC.., no problem, only gonna cost you $2 for every $1 you make.
GLG
Well-Known Member
This is a good analysis of what is going on. The stakes are high but BC holds all the cards at this point.
A pipeline rattles the political landscape
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...s-canadas-politicallandscape/article35197642/
Early this year, Christy Clark’s Liberal government announced a deal with Kinder Morgan Inc. that outlined cash payments over two decades in exchange for a clear “yes” on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.
That contract would see the company give British Columbia annual amounts for 20 years to fund environmental projects in exchange for provincial approval of the pipeline. The Premier’s critics called it a shakedown, saying it was unprecedented for a company to pay a provincial government for crossing its territory to deliver goods to market.
However cynical it appeared, the deal between Kinder Morgan and the B.C. government was also seen as a pragmatic political solution. It gave Ms. Clark the ability to say that the controversial pipeline expansion to transport Alberta heavy crude to global markets, adding more oil tanker traffic in coastal waters, would also be in her province’s interest.
The federal government had already approved the pipeline. B.C.’s agreement gave Ottawa a reprieve from the dangerous political territory of being forced to assert its authority over such projects.
But the contract now faces an unravelling – and along with it, the fine political balance that was in place to get the pipeline expansion built across provincial lines.
A pipeline rattles the political landscape
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...s-canadas-politicallandscape/article35197642/
Early this year, Christy Clark’s Liberal government announced a deal with Kinder Morgan Inc. that outlined cash payments over two decades in exchange for a clear “yes” on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.
That contract would see the company give British Columbia annual amounts for 20 years to fund environmental projects in exchange for provincial approval of the pipeline. The Premier’s critics called it a shakedown, saying it was unprecedented for a company to pay a provincial government for crossing its territory to deliver goods to market.
However cynical it appeared, the deal between Kinder Morgan and the B.C. government was also seen as a pragmatic political solution. It gave Ms. Clark the ability to say that the controversial pipeline expansion to transport Alberta heavy crude to global markets, adding more oil tanker traffic in coastal waters, would also be in her province’s interest.
The federal government had already approved the pipeline. B.C.’s agreement gave Ottawa a reprieve from the dangerous political territory of being forced to assert its authority over such projects.
But the contract now faces an unravelling – and along with it, the fine political balance that was in place to get the pipeline expansion built across provincial lines.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Not sure there was much research involved in this article. I believe a lot of fuel inBC is supplied by the refineries of Washington State. Not sure where the 90% number stated is derived? Maybe the supply of crude to a single small refinery? At any rate to somehow think BC is reliant on Transmountain for fuel is ridiculous and shows both arrogance and ignorance
I personally think these articles with thinly veiled threats,that can never be carried out fuel the fires. Alberta can't turn BC cities into automobileless towns because we don't rely on them for fuel. The truth is we have alternate supply available from Washinton. Same Is true for transportation, we and the rest of Canada can still work around Alberta using southern rail routes to bypass them. So by making ridiculous threats like closing their border, what would be accomplished?
I'm a firm believer in our Provinces working together for the greater good of the country. However ridiculous articles with empty threats make me wonder. This type of sabre rattling is counterproductive.
seascene
Crew Member
Agreed and I believe most all Albertans have come a long way from "let the eastern (and BC) bastards freeze in the dark" but an echo remains from some sectors. Alaska and Norway have enormous "heritage funds" from oil resources dealing with the same corporations as Alberta. Norwegian fund at a trillion dollars making every man, woman and child a millionaire in Norwegian Krone; Alaska sends out an annual dividend to it's citizen. Albertans got conned into letting the foxes run the hen house. Government and corporate elites took their money. Albertans took an open ice hit with their heads down but no doubt in my mind will shake it off, diversify... and yes... afford Conor McDavid salary. Why their heritage fund is gone:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/what-happened-to-albertas-cash-stash/article24191018/
and using the F word this:
- Status