5 ms·

It disgusted me how places like reddit were absolutely, positively swarming with pro-pipeline accounts during that time, defending it as the more cost-effective

It disgusted me how places like reddit were absolutely, positively swarming with pro-pipeline accounts during that time, defending it as the more cost-effective and environmentally-friendly option.

calibas 7y ago
Does anybody know why the story is dropping down so quickly on HN? It's currently 194 points & posted 57 minutes ago, one of the most viral on the front page by far, yet it's gone from #1 to #22 in around 30 minutes. Edit: Down to #23 since I wrote the comment. It's gotten 200 votes in an hour, should be at least top 5. The #1 and #2 posts have only gotten 49 and 23 votes respectively in the past hour. Edit 2: Now it's up to #21 & 209 points... Edit 3: Down to #24 & 228 points... Edit 4: Up to #20 & 239 points... Edit 5: Up to #14 & 278 points... Edit 6: Dropped way down to #40 with 312 points, only 2 hours old...
- jupiter90000 7y ago
  I don't know for certain but it seems like ranking is not just by upvotes within a time period, but also what the topic content is, based on how I've seen posts ranked before. Kind of politicized non-tech things don't seem to get priority even if there are lots of upvotes it seems. Just based on my observations, I could be mistaken. Edit: as others mentioned it could factor in people flagging the post, comment to upvotes ratio, etc
- root_axis 7y ago
  Politics without a technical tie in?
  - calibas 7y ago
    I can understand that, but then why is a post about canine health ranked 10 times higher when it was posted roughly the same time and received 1/3 the votes? I'm wondering if there's some sort of artificial manipulation going on, as it's a story that's heavily embarrassing to one of the world's most powerful and influential industries.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      A simpler explanation than artificial manipulation is extreme polarization. This story is a kind of an "egg on the face" moment for one side of the debate, so lots of people have a shared desire for this story to wane without necessarily coordinating to make it disappear.
kortilla 7y ago
But pipelines still are better than trucks. The alternate to the pipeline wasn’t no gas at all.
- metamet 7y ago
  Pipeline is an investment in infrastructure that sets up a sunk cost argument against moving away from oil as a driving source of energy. "Why would we invest in more clean/green energy sources when we have this brand new pipeline?" It essentially hardens the argument (and subsequent lobbying) for these industries. I get that it is a huge source of income for folks who travel to and live in these areas. However, it's not a forward looking path--particularly when the environmental impact and costs are so high up front. In that respect, using trucks--while theoretically having a larger short term impact on emissions--allows for future flexibility and doesn't break into the earth in such a permanent and invasive way.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  "Better" in what sense? A tanker truck that spills its entire load might spill 3,000 gallons or 11,600 gallons[0], a far cry from the 11,000,000 gallons with which this story is concerned. On that measure, trucks are clearly lower-risk. On other measures, they fare worse. There was also the option of running the pipeline through a different area, but the government claimed that wasn't worth the extra expense, and that there would definitely be no spills like the one there obviously was. [0] https://www.reference.com/business-finance/many-gallons-tanker-truck-hold-98cd8f85aa0d92b4 https://www.reference.com/business-finance/many-gallons-tank...
  - ticmasta 7y ago
    The alternative to pipelines is not trucks, it's rail, and the impact x frequency of rail-based spills is larger than pipelines.
    - ilikehurdles 7y ago
      No, it isn’t. Pipelines spill far more than rail.
criddell 7y ago
> defending it as the more cost-effective and environmentally-friendly option Is that not true? What's the best option for transporting oil and gas?
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Not transporting it. A better solution can still be a bad solution. If you absolutely are going to burn it (sigh), burn it on site for electrical generation. Transmission lines don’t leak methane, and HVDC cables can be buried in a similar fashion to a pipeline. Methane extraction aligns well with geographies that have strong renewable growth and need combined cycle gas turbine backing until battery replacement can occur. Now, if you’re trying to export it and need it in original form, this doesn’t work and you’re going to try to avoid externalities of transport, which is what regulation is for.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    You can suffer 60% loss on HVDC long range transmission alone, and that's assuming you have the tech for it. There's a reason why coal is hauled to power station, instead of being burned near mines.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Have a citation for those losses? I haven’t seen HVDC lines with losses above single digits. “HVDC transmission has typically 30-50% less transmission loss than comparable alternating current overhead lines. (For comparison: given 2500 MW transmitted power on 800 km of overhead line, the loss with a conventional 400-kv AC line is 9.4%; with HVDC transmission at 500 kV, it is only 6%, and at 800 kV it is just 2.6%.)” [1] Also, there are many coal plants sited right at coal mines. [1] https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/2012-07-wismar/factsheet-hvdc-e.pdf https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/201...
    - 7y ago
ijiiijji1 7y ago
Bots, shills and morons "steering the sentiment" to confuse, befuddle and seed doubt in people's minds. We have to take decisive action now and be undeterred by BS or games. The billionaires are (indirectly) fking with you to suck more money out of civilization before they isolate themselves in their doom bunkers where they too will eventually die.
- ryacko 7y ago
  That seems completely counterintuitive, billionaires already run the world and are directly accountable to impacts to the world economy. I don’t think they are trying to obtain more increments of power or wealth that no one would notice.
FilterSweep 7y ago
it’s scary I can no longer tell the difference between paid mercenaries/interns manufacturing consent and reactionaries on reddit

It disgusted me how places like reddit were absolutely, positively swarming with pro-pipeline accounts during that time, defending it as the more cost-effective and environmentally-friendly option.

calibas 7y ago

Does anybody know why the story is dropping down so quickly on HN? It's currently 194 points & posted 57 minutes ago, one of the most viral on the front page by far, yet it's gone from #1 to #22 in around 30 minutes. Edit: Down to #23 since I wrote the comment. It's gotten 200 votes in an hour, should be at least top 5. The #1 and #2 posts have only gotten 49 and 23 votes respectively in the past hour. Edit 2: Now it's up to #21 & 209 points... Edit 3: Down to #24 & 228 points... Edit 4: Up to #20 & 239 points... Edit 5: Up to #14 & 278 points... Edit 6: Dropped way down to #40 with 312 points, only 2 hours old...

jupiter90000 7y ago
I don't know for certain but it seems like ranking is not just by upvotes within a time period, but also what the topic content is, based on how I've seen posts ranked before. Kind of politicized non-tech things don't seem to get priority even if there are lots of upvotes it seems. Just based on my observations, I could be mistaken. Edit: as others mentioned it could factor in people flagging the post, comment to upvotes ratio, etc
root_axis 7y ago
Politics without a technical tie in?
- calibas 7y ago
  I can understand that, but then why is a post about canine health ranked 10 times higher when it was posted roughly the same time and received 1/3 the votes? I'm wondering if there's some sort of artificial manipulation going on, as it's a story that's heavily embarrassing to one of the world's most powerful and influential industries.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    A simpler explanation than artificial manipulation is extreme polarization. This story is a kind of an "egg on the face" moment for one side of the debate, so lots of people have a shared desire for this story to wane without necessarily coordinating to make it disappear.

kortilla 7y ago

But pipelines still are better than trucks. The alternate to the pipeline wasn’t no gas at all.

metamet 7y ago
Pipeline is an investment in infrastructure that sets up a sunk cost argument against moving away from oil as a driving source of energy. "Why would we invest in more clean/green energy sources when we have this brand new pipeline?" It essentially hardens the argument (and subsequent lobbying) for these industries. I get that it is a huge source of income for folks who travel to and live in these areas. However, it's not a forward looking path--particularly when the environmental impact and costs are so high up front. In that respect, using trucks--while theoretically having a larger short term impact on emissions--allows for future flexibility and doesn't break into the earth in such a permanent and invasive way.
pwinnski 7y ago
"Better" in what sense? A tanker truck that spills its entire load might spill 3,000 gallons or 11,600 gallons[0], a far cry from the 11,000,000 gallons with which this story is concerned. On that measure, trucks are clearly lower-risk. On other measures, they fare worse. There was also the option of running the pipeline through a different area, but the government claimed that wasn't worth the extra expense, and that there would definitely be no spills like the one there obviously was. [0] https://www.reference.com/business-finance/many-gallons-tanker-truck-hold-98cd8f85aa0d92b4 https://www.reference.com/business-finance/many-gallons-tank...
- ticmasta 7y ago
  The alternative to pipelines is not trucks, it's rail, and the impact x frequency of rail-based spills is larger than pipelines.
  - ilikehurdles 7y ago
    No, it isn’t. Pipelines spill far more than rail.

criddell 7y ago

> defending it as the more cost-effective and environmentally-friendly option Is that not true? What's the best option for transporting oil and gas?

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Not transporting it. A better solution can still be a bad solution. If you absolutely are going to burn it (sigh), burn it on site for electrical generation. Transmission lines don’t leak methane, and HVDC cables can be buried in a similar fashion to a pipeline. Methane extraction aligns well with geographies that have strong renewable growth and need combined cycle gas turbine backing until battery replacement can occur. Now, if you’re trying to export it and need it in original form, this doesn’t work and you’re going to try to avoid externalities of transport, which is what regulation is for.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Aperocky 7y ago
  You can suffer 60% loss on HVDC long range transmission alone, and that's assuming you have the tech for it. There's a reason why coal is hauled to power station, instead of being burned near mines.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Have a citation for those losses? I haven’t seen HVDC lines with losses above single digits. “HVDC transmission has typically 30-50% less transmission loss than comparable alternating current overhead lines. (For comparison: given 2500 MW transmitted power on 800 km of overhead line, the loss with a conventional 400-kv AC line is 9.4%; with HVDC transmission at 500 kV, it is only 6%, and at 800 kV it is just 2.6%.)” [1] Also, there are many coal plants sited right at coal mines. [1] https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/2012-07-wismar/factsheet-hvdc-e.pdf https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/201...
  - 7y ago

ijiiijji1 7y ago

Bots, shills and morons "steering the sentiment" to confuse, befuddle and seed doubt in people's minds. We have to take decisive action now and be undeterred by BS or games. The billionaires are (indirectly) fking with you to suck more money out of civilization before they isolate themselves in their doom bunkers where they too will eventually die.

ryacko 7y ago
That seems completely counterintuitive, billionaires already run the world and are directly accountable to impacts to the world economy. I don’t think they are trying to obtain more increments of power or wealth that no one would notice.

FilterSweep 7y ago

it’s scary I can no longer tell the difference between paid mercenaries/interns manufacturing consent and reactionaries on reddit