Battery Powered Equipment

suladas said:

If only there was another place more ethical to get oil from, possibly through a line of some kind.....

Click to expand...

We could even refine it here. Just ship it to Burnaby, then tanker it through the Panama canal to the east coast. We don't need no stinkin' pipeline

JD955SC said:

I had one science and physics teacher in high school tell us that a 100mpg carb existed but the greedy oil companies suppressed it and then a physics professor in college tell me that DeLoreans were invisible to police radar which made them popular so the production had to be outlawed. These whack jobs who should know better are putting all kinds of physically impossible ideas into kids heads.

The rise in gas prices from what happened this past week will be blamed exclusively on the “fat cat greedy oil companies” by the economically illiterate crowd. Ignoring the fact that if oil companies were so greedy prices would never have dropped in the first place.

The idiots also don’t understand that a company exists to make money, not make them feel good emotionally. It is literally the only reason for a company to exist. Providing wages in exchange for labor is how a company benefits a worker. Nothing more, nothing less.

They have no concept of how economics work at all and are stuck at the kindergarten level of how things work. As someone who actually does understand stuff it’s frustrating to watch. They get their education from people who have lived their entire adult life in a sheltered academia life.

Click to expand...

There is a friend of mine that worked building oil refiners and such. Said there was a museum of that kind of stuff. Exon in Pa maybe. I would have to ask him.
I had a 58 Plymouth that got 17 MPG at 70 MPH. That weighs about the same as my 2019 F150 which gets about 18.5 MPG. Some things have not progressed much.

92U 3406 said:

We could even refine it here. Just ship it to Burnaby, then tanker it through the Panama canal to the east coast. We don't need no stinkin' pipeline

Click to expand...

Search petroleum pipe lines in the US. They are already everywhere. The one I worked on from Savannah to Elberton was not even on the map.

Tenwheeler said:

Search petroleum pipe lines in the US. They are already everywhere. The one I worked on from Savannah to Elberton was not even on the map.

Click to expand...

Its kind of an inside joke. We've tried getting a pipeline from Alberta to the refineries on the east coast but there's too much opposition to it. Instead last year they loaded a tanker on the BC coast and shipped it to eastern Canada via the Panama Canal. Just poking fun at how inefficient it was.

Pipelines are the cheapest way to move any liquid, yes there are a lot of pipelines in the US now, but they are all maxed out for capacity, from natural gas to the liquids pipelines, our need for energy is much greater than it was 50 years ago when most of the pipelines were built, shortages are all the time. Most home owners or city people don't know or realize anything is shorted, that's because they take priority over anything else. The fall of 19 was a good example, all farmers were shut off and shut down due the shortage of LP gas, anyone on natural gas was shut off as well, to keep the cities fed and everyone's home warm. This isn't new by any means and its not an isolated incidence either, it happens all the time.

Most pipelines were built over 50 years ago, and yet people seem to think for some reason our energy consumption has stayed the same or gone down, it hasn't its gone up, way up, farmers yields have increased three fold or more in the last half century, that many more bushels to dry, more homes have gone up, more to heat, cities have expanded, also more to heat and the list just continues, yet pipelines don't or can't expand, so its trucked instead or worse yet, by rail.

As a contractor, the whole concept of pipelines is a mixed one, first I hate them and having to deal with and dig around them all the time is beyond a pain, yet I need to fuel they bring near me so I can run my machines, heat my house and dry my crops.

There are two sides to the keystone pipeline, some hate it, some love it depending on which side your on, most states were up for the revenue they'd get off it via the taxes it provided and nothing for expenses verses trucking it all over the roads, next is, before it gets to the gulf, it first has to go through the US, meaning before anything can be exported, its on US soil first and controlled by the US, so if we need the oil 50 years from now, it won't be exported at all or ever. Some feel its like putting a pipeline through your property up to your house and it ends there and can then be pumped out...........or your getting it first before any is pumped out kind of thinking, if its abandoned and not pumping Canadian oil, in the future it can move other liquids, which are badly needed across the US even though most don't know it or realize it. Jobs when building and once done will still be created and every hour it will generate revenue no matter what. So John is partly right, basically it shouldn't go across the US to export someone else's oil, but on the other hand, who in their right mind would ever pump their product via another country for export that the other country controls the spigot end so to speak? How about it, every drop of oil exported from the middle east would first go through the United States before its put onto any ship or vessel, I think it would sure be good for the US and I don't think we'd be having so many issues dealing with everyone over there either, but that's just my opinion, sure others have far different one's.

I have no issues with pipelines built in the US for carrying US products for US consumption and that carry US responsibilities for safety. At least someone in the US will be responsible for any problems they cause. Pipelines built for and owned by other nations is a different story. Is Canada going to be responsible for any and all the issues that may surround this pipeline. They obviously showed that they didn't care about putting it under a drinking water source of the indian tribe in the Dakotas. How do you ensure responsibility from another nation. What court will you take your case to if a pipe bursts where it crosses your land? Who would pay for the cleanup?
Here is another thought. Why can't Canada build its own pipeline to the west coast? Their own people don't want it so it is easier to shove down our throats?

Well I think you can look at the Deep Water Horizon incident and I think that answers most of your questions. BP paid 15 Billion in fines and costs related to their incident. There clearly is accountability. The comment about not caring about putting a line under a lake. Lines are put under bodies of water all the time, if that wasn't an option ,the lines wouldn't go far. The indians are getting paid for for crossing reservation land. A break would affect far more than just the indian tribe, no one in the area took that decision lightly.

Are there risks, certainly there are however crude needs to be moved, either by ship, train or lines. Is a line in the ground better than having a Valdez incident? Yea I think so and apparently many others do as well.

Having access to that oil that comes out of Canada is strategically important. Since our oil production is going to take a down turn, OPEC is unstable, I would say having access to the third largest oil reserve in the world is pretty vital. If the price of that is having a line running underground and under bodies of water from Canada to Nebraska, that is a risk worth taking. Especially when considering the blood and money spent in keeping oil flowing from the Middle East.

I've been to quite a few pipeline safety meetings over the years. It seems like there are pipeline accidents every year because someone did not do a utility locate and that is why they push the safety meetings. Other than bad digs causing breakage/leakage, pipelines ARE the most efficient and safest mode of liquid transportation available. No other method of liquid transport comes close to the safety factor of a pipeline or the low cost to move the product long distances.

Back to the battery ideas, this came across my feed the past couple of days - a new, high efficiency rotary engine design. Follow this link for more on that system.
At 25% of the weight per power of a conventional engine (and size), compact power sources such as this could be combined with regenerative electric components than might provide a viable option and keep the vehicles/equipment from being dependent on the electrical grid. If this engine design could be powered by a hydrogen cell, you might see a clean burning alternative to fossil fuels within the next couple of decades. I'll be keeping an eye on this new design to see how it progresses.

John C. said:

I have no issues with pipelines built in the US for carrying US products for US consumption and that carry US responsibilities for safety. At least someone in the US will be responsible for any problems they cause. Pipelines built for and owned by other nations is a different story. Is Canada going to be responsible for any and all the issues that may surround this pipeline. They obviously showed that they didn't care about putting it under a drinking water source of the indian tribe in the Dakotas. How do you ensure responsibility from another nation. What court will you take your case to if a pipe bursts where it crosses your land? Who would pay for the cleanup?
Here is another thought. Why can't Canada build its own pipeline to the west coast? Their own people don't want it so it is easier to shove down our throats?

Click to expand...

the real story about the Indian tribe in that case was the pipeline wasn’t actually going on their land and they were pissed about not getting the money for it. They found sympathetic ears for their version of the story (after all any other version is automatically labeled “durr hurr big oil evil”) and ran with it.

There is always more to the story. Always. In today’s world of endless environmental permits and government oversight that story about the “poor widdle Indian tribe getting their land stolen” hit my BS detector immediately and then I got the rest of it when I ran into some guys from that area.

KSSS said:

Well I think you can look at the Deep Water Horizon incident and I think that answers most of your questions. BP paid 15 Billion in fines and costs related to their incident. There clearly is accountability. The comment about not caring about putting a line under a lake. Lines are put under bodies of water all the time, if that wasn't an option ,the lines wouldn't go far. The indians are getting paid for for crossing reservation land. A break would affect far more than just the indian tribe, no one in the area took that decision lightly.

Are there risks, certainly there are however crude needs to be moved, either by ship, train or lines. Is a line in the ground better than having a Valdez incident? Yea I think so and apparently many others do as well.

Having access to that oil that comes out of Canada is strategically important. Since our oil production is going to take a down turn, OPEC is unstable, I would say having access to the third largest oil reserve in the world is pretty vital. If the price of that is having a line running underground and under bodies of water from Canada to Nebraska, that is a risk worth taking. Especially when considering the blood and money spent in keeping oil flowing from the Middle East.

Click to expand...

Exactly, it benefits both countries. The companies who are building it are the same regardless if it's in Canada or the US. If anything Canada has more regulations in terms of building the pipeline safely then the US does, for example fracking was banned here while the US still happily does it and will continue having earthquakes because of it. Look up the amount of spills and track records of Canada vs USA in terms of oil spills, etc. Canada is way safer. When it comes to building stuff in the states, it's not about jobs, safety, or the environment it's about who is willing to spend more paying off the politicians to get it passed. Money is the only reason KXL was scrapped.

The way some people are against it comes off as they don't like it because it also benefits Canada. Like they would rather ship oil in by sea from saudi arabia? What a joke. There should not be a single drop of oil getting shipped into north america, there is no reason for it.

If KXL doesn't get changed again and Canada finally gets it's act together the US could easily be in trouble in terms of finding oil, and quite frankly I would love to see that. Get the pipelines to the east and west built and ship oil elsewhere, and stop shipping all that oil south by train so buffett stops racking in billions.

Pipelines are so terrible, they should take out all the natural gas pipe lines and require everyone to have a propane tank sit in their yard and have a truck come and fill it. There are 433,000kms. of pipelines in Alberta. 57% are for natural gas. Pipelines are heavily regulated and proven to be the safest and most efficient method to transfer the products in them.

Pipeline incidents in Alberta declined by 32 per cent between 2009 and 2018, while the length of pipelines increased by about 15 per cent. Western Canadian Select is also less expensive than conventional oil which offers even more cost savings.

suladas said:

If KXL doesn't get changed again and Canada finally gets it's act together the US could easily be in trouble in terms of finding oil, and quite frankly I would love to see that. Get the pipelines to the east and west built and ship oil elsewhere, and stop shipping all that oil south by train so buffett stops racking in billions.

Click to expand...

Well I for one have several Canadian friends from all over Canada that I've met over the years that I care for and wouldn't wish any "trouble" as you say over a political football such as the Keystone Pipeline.

We can discuss the merits of electric machines, pipelines, oil, coal, what backhoe to buy for your 2 acre mini-farm, how many hours does this undercarriage have on it, compaction techniques, your dogs favorite bed, what your cooking for dinner - all sorts of topics. However we here at HEF try to keep the political back and forth to a minimum. There are plenty of internet outlets to discuss politics, world views and the like on the WWW - just not here on HEF.

suladas said:

Exactly, it benefits both countries. The companies who are building it are the same regardless if it's in Canada or the US. If anything Canada has more regulations in terms of building the pipeline safely then the US does, for example fracking was banned here while the US still happily does it and will continue having earthquakes because of it. Look up the amount of spills and track records of Canada vs USA in terms of oil spills, etc. Canada is way safer. When it comes to building stuff in the states, it's not about jobs, safety, or the environment it's about who is willing to spend more paying off the politicians to get it passed. Money is the only reason KXL was scrapped.

The way some people are against it comes off as they don't like it because it also benefits Canada. Like they would rather ship oil in by sea from saudi arabia? What a joke. There should not be a single drop of oil getting shipped into north america, there is no reason for it.

If KXL doesn't get changed again and Canada finally gets it's act together the US could easily be in trouble in terms of finding oil, and quite frankly I would love to see that. Get the pipelines to the east and west built and ship oil elsewhere, and stop shipping all that oil south by train so buffett stops racking in billions.

Click to expand...

There is fracking in Alberta. In fact only 4 provinces have a provincial ban on fracking. Most natural gas comes from fracking. I know a place that supplies tons and tons of fracking sand.

I wasn't trying to be part of a political debate. Just saying pipelines offer a lot benefits and cost savings over other methods. I think it's the politician's that make it more about politics than it needs to be. Maybe electric energy or hydrogen cell technology is the wave of the future but there is still a huge demand for oil and will be for some time. I think everybody involved needs to look at the big picture and have qualified people offering guidance and expertise. Money and lobby groups shouldn't be the deciding factors. Tree huggers don't want the tree's cut down but most live in wooden houses. Celebrities flying over the oilsands complaining seem to forget the plane they're flying in needs that oil to run.

The world's moving to electric. Not sure if I'll jump on the first electric airplane but I do enjoy the technology of it all. I agree construction equipment will be the last to change but also in some industries it will be sooner then everyone may think. I've worked on alot of fully electric construction equipment for indoor use. I'm working on increasing my knowledge on alternative energy because I'll be working on it sooner or later. I cant wait to see one of these come into the show room. Case made the first backhoe kind of cool there one of the first on an ev version

https://www.casece.com/northamerica/en-us/products/backhoe-loaders/580ev-project-zeus

Did you read the 1st post in this thread?

industrial spam got through my email sorry didn't click on the link my bad. I love pipelines

Deere says they are entering the battery powered loader backhoe business now.

https://www.equipmentworld.com/equi...35a7e056326d5b1b7f&oly_enc_id=9541F2856812F0D

Komatsu says they are going to use batteries for counterweights.

https://www.equipmentworld.com/alte...35a7e056326d5b1b7f&oly_enc_id=9541F2856812F0D

FYI...just came across this article on hydrogen fuel cells...they have a ways to go.

https://inhabitat.com/hydrogen-fuel...=25068571&utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io