Keystone XL Updates

13567

Comments

  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    I also want to apologize for my spell check... I am going to have to do some editing here on my IPad. I am impressed anyone can make sense of this nonsense haha
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    It's interesting to me that in some circles, partisan politics and references to "liberal" and "conservative" come into to play when discussing oil, energy alternatives and climate. Those who give serious study to environmental issues such as energy and climate, particularly scientists in those fields, generally avoid using those labels and find little use in discussing partisan politics, but rather keep their focus on science itself. Yet when you look at discussions which favor our continued dependence on oil and continue to argue against the notion of anthrogenically influenced global warming, you frequently see those labels and partisan politics come into play. That seems very interesting to me- something that might well be considered.

    Again, I would suggest that anyone interested in the subject would do well to not listen to me or to famous actors and musicians or to politicians or to people who work for the oil industry or people who make non-essential solar powered gadgets but rather, listen to those scientists who work in a non-partisan setting and study the subject as serious and important work and show a concern for how human activity affects the world in which we live.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    I would suggest anyone interested in the subject properly educate themselves on the Canadian oil sands and the pipeline industry. Also ensure that you realize the global economic impact of oil and how it used every day.

    Another thing you should educate yourself on is the history of the Middle East post WWII and how the U.S. Has gotten itself into this predicament in the first place. Having a North American resource as large as the oil sands from your friends to the north is an advantage. ISIS, for example, has oil reserves and is cashing these in to buy weapons. As a matter of fact they are currently closing in on oil fields which earn as much as a $100 million per day. Do you want to buy your oil from terrorists?

    Here is a map of the existing pipelines showing how we are already interconnected, and therefore the argument seems moot.

    http://www.capp.ca/canadaIndustry/oil/Pages/PipelineMap.aspx

    The oil will get there, the safest way is pipelines. New pipeline technology is impressive. Railways are too risky and we know what an oil tanker disaster can do.

    Cheers
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    brianlux said:

    1ThoughtKnown said:

    backseatLover12 said:

    1ThoughtKnown said:


    By the way, if you think all scientists are unbiased you are a very naive individual....

    Real scientists are only biased for fact related science.
    Paid off scientists are hardly rooting for science, they are only interested in getting paid.

    Those are the two types of scientists out there.
    Thank you for making my point
    I'm fairly certain backseatLover is talking about the difference between scientists who are true to the nature of pure science which is the work of seeking "a basic knowledge for the discovery of unknown laws based on well controlled experiments and deductions from demonstrated facts or truths"...

    as opposed to "paid off scientists" who are not interested in pure science but only in making a lot of money. I'm guessing you understand the difference between the two.

    What might come into question is- which type of scientist is doing what? It seems very safe to say that scientists who work for the oil industry are of the latter type and scientists who do work to find ways to conserve and protect the environment are the former.

    Yes, exactly Brian. Thank you.
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    brianlux said:

    It's interesting to me that in some circles, partisan politics and references to "liberal" and "conservative" come into to play when discussing oil, energy alternatives and climate. Those who give serious study to environmental issues such as energy and climate, particularly scientists in those fields, generally avoid using those labels and find little use in discussing partisan politics, but rather keep their focus on science itself. Yet when you look at discussions which favor our continued dependence on oil and continue to argue against the notion of anthrogenically influenced global warming, you frequently see those labels and partisan politics come into play. That seems very interesting to me- something that might well be considered.

    Again, I would suggest that anyone interested in the subject would do well to not listen to me or to famous actors and musicians or to politicians or to people who work for the oil industry or people who make non-essential solar powered gadgets but rather, listen to those scientists who work in a non-partisan setting and study the subject as serious and important work and show a concern for how human activity affects the world in which we live.

    Brian is absolutely correct here. If you can't escape insisting that environmental issues are politically related, you've been had by the special interest group lobbyists paying big bucks to politicians that do nothing but dumb the American public down by suggesting that a SCIENCE has anything at all to do at all with politics. It didn't have anything to do with politics until George W. Bush made it political. Bush fired scientists for not publishing slanted material that made Big Oil look good. He censored scientists and threatened to fire them if they didn't comply. Some quit and blew the whistle. A few stayed on and censored themselves in order to make the bucks.

    When are people going to wake up and realize that their political leanings DO NOT DEFINE us as human beings? We are people first. And politics does not define who we are. Unless we allow it, and that never ends up well.

  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/24/good-news-mother-earth-solar-wind-power-becoming-cheaper-fossil-fuels/

    For the solar and wind industries in the United States, it has been a long-held dream: to produce energy at a cost equal to conventional sources like coal and natural gas.That day appears to be dawning.

    The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.

    Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing contracts, known as power purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest, where wind and sunlight are abundant.

    Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

    In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

    And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

    “Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

    “We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

    According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

    “It is really quite notable, when compared to where we were just five years ago, to see the decline in the cost of these technologies,” said Jonathan Mir, a managing director at Lazard, which has been comparing the economics of power generation technologies since 2008.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    backseatLover12 said:

    http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/24/good-news-mother-earth-solar-wind-power-becoming-cheaper-fossil-fuels/

    For the solar and wind industries in the United States, it has been a long-held dream: to produce energy at a cost equal to conventional sources like coal and natural gas.That day appears to be dawning.

    The cost of providing electricity from wind and solar power plants has plummeted over the last five years, so much so that in some markets renewable generation is now cheaper than coal or natural gas.

    Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing contracts, known as power purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest, where wind and sunlight are abundant.

    Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

    In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

    And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

    “Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

    “We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

    According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

    “It is really quite notable, when compared to where we were just five years ago, to see the decline in the cost of these technologies,” said Jonathan Mir, a managing director at Lazard, which has been comparing the economics of power generation technologies since 2008.

    Great article, bsL12- thank you! What Cardwell says here makes good sense.

    Of course, conservation and reduction of energy usage is our best move, but because we do live in the type of civilization that exists today, it makes sense both economically and environmentally to promote alternatives like solar and wind. Wind generated power has major drawbacks- especially bird death- both those problems are solvable.

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)

    http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full


    The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650


    Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"


    I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not.
    Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.

  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    http://www.brighthubengineering.com/geotechnical-engineering/71200-negative-impacts-of-hydroelectric-dams/

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    1ThoughtKnown said:

    For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)

    http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full


    The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650


    Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"


    I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not.
    Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.

    Absolutely agree. Only oil can do that.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,426
    brianlux said:

    1ThoughtKnown said:

    For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)

    http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full


    The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650


    Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"


    I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not.
    Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.

    Absolutely agree. Only oil can do that.
    .......So far.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    1ThoughtKnown said:

    For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)

    http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full


    The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650


    Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"


    I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not.
    Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.

    We will be very very sorry when we burn all the oil for power and transportation and theres none left for industrial/technological manufacturing. There is no replacement for oil in the industrial world, and we are wasting it on the wrong uses!
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    mickeyrat said:

    brianlux said:

    1ThoughtKnown said:

    For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)

    http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full


    The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650


    Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"


    I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not.
    Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.

    Absolutely agree. Only oil can do that.
    .......So far.
    I hope I'm wrong and I hope you're right, Mickeyrat! Meanwhile, I'm all in favor of looking for cleaner alternatives and conserving energy.

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • lukin2006
    lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    Hemp fuel could have made America Energy Independent by Now

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDT7dGD9IxU

    How come none's talking about this alternative ... wind and solar and electric cars are nice too talk about. Take it from solar and wind are costly and are driving up energy prices here in Ontario and making Ontario less competitive. Electric cars the average middle class person can not afford one.
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • Last-12-Exit
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    edited November 2014
    rgambs said:

    1ThoughtKnown said:

    For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)

    http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full


    The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650


    Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"


    I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not.
    Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.

    We will be very very sorry when we burn all the oil for power and transportation and theres none left for industrial/technological manufacturing. There is no replacement for oil in the industrial world, and we are wasting it on the wrong uses!
    Out of curiosity, what are the right uses?
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    lukin2006 said:

    Hemp fuel could have made America Energy Independent by Now

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDT7dGD9IxU

    How come none's talking about this alternative ... wind and solar and electric cars are nice too talk about. Take it from solar and wind are costly and are driving up energy prices here in Ontario and making Ontario less competitive. Electric cars the average middle class person can not afford one.

    Yeah, funny how that idea keeps getting pushed under the carpet.

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Last-12-Exit said:

    rgambs said:

    1ThoughtKnown said:

    For objectivity sake, the problems with wind energy (besides the obvious that it does not provide enough energy and when discussing pipelines like Keystone is comparing apples to oranges)

    http://www.cfp.ca/content/59/5/473.full


    The positives and negatives on hydroelectric power are here (disastrous flooding in Calgary were caused by streams from the Rocky Mountains being dammed for increasing electric need as the city g

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650


    Also, the solar cell pollution disaster created for your "clean energy"


    I know oil pollutes and have stated as much, but there are serious problems with the so-called green solutions. Are they better? Perhaps. Can they support the North American thirst for energy? Absolutely not.
    Do they have environmental impacts? You better believe it.

    We will be very very sorry when we burn all the oil for power and transportation and theres none left for industrial/technological manufacturing. There is no replacement for oil in the industrial world, and we are wasting it on the wrong uses!
    Out of curiosity, what are the right uses?
    The ones for which there is no petroleum alternative! Although I suppose technology will always find an alternative, there are so many vital products which oil is crucial for production it is difficult to think of the world without it.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    This thread should be closed. I believe the Senate passed this bill.

    As Cheech would say.. "thats false advertising mang!" :lol:
  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    edited February 2015
    The president is going to veto.

    Who changed the title of this thread? Is Brian around? Whoever did it, change it back.

    Never mind, this thread was dug up and not the one we have been updating...
    Post edited by backseatLover12 on
  • 1ThoughtKnown
    1ThoughtKnown Posts: 6,155
    Prez may veto... but I don't hink his Illuminati brethren would like it.
    Title isn't changes, but it should be becuase the Senate PASSED Keystone..and oil is up 20% th last 6 days.

Categories