Biden kills Keystone XL permit.... again

Matt Dillon said:
You're delusional.
Click to expand...

I'm delusional because I think electric vehicles don't have spark plugs and don't require gasoline?

Or I am delusional because I think that bright thing in the sky is delivering energy to the earth?

I bet you don't even own any vehicle.
Click to expand...
That is your attempt to change the topic? Accuse me of not owning any vehicles? I probably should have pity on someone so poorly armed when it comes to intelligent conversations. Do you know what ROI? It's why I have more money than you do because I can do the simple math to tell me what makes me the most money in the long run.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Nope. What is myopic is the thinking that somehow a few temporary jobs is worth the environmental risk that falls entirely upon the United States. We get no other benefit -- the oil running through Keystone is Canada's, not ours.
Click to expand...
it doesnt stop the oil..it just comes by rail or tanker truck instead - much more liable to have an accident that way
Biden is an unthinking idiot
 
RB 60 said:
How much will you spend on electricity to charge that electric car? You'll still have to get it inspected and maintained. Wait until you get a short in the system from a hard rain storm or driving through a deep puddle. Gonna suck to be you when you can't find a garage that will fix it and you have to go to a high priced dealership. Save your money...
Click to expand...

I can't help you if you have poor reading comprehension skills. You might want to read my earlier post before you ask stupid questions about how much it will cost to charge an electric car with solar panels.

I never said it would be totally free of costs. I said it would not require gasoline, spark plugs or radiator and transmission flushes. Because of regenerative braking, brake servicing will be less but not non existent. It pays to live in a state that doesn't require annual vehicle inspections because everyone here is liberal and keeps their cars in good shape without the government forcing them to. ;)

A short in the system from a hard rain storm or driving through a deep puddle? ROFLMAO.. Do you know anything about cars in general, let alone electric vehicles. Electric cars have a computer but then so do any other car manufactured since 1990. Once you get past the computer, an electric car is much simpler to maintain than an ICE. I'll bet the mechanics love it when you come in after every rain storm because you car stopped working.
 
anatta said:
it doesnt stop the oil..it just comes by rail or tanker truck instead - much more liable to have an accident that way
Biden is an unthinking idiot
Click to expand...

There is no law that says we must allow Canadian tanker trucks or trains to bring oil through our territory.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Questions for you:

What company in Arizona got the biggest environmental fine levied against it in the state's history?

How many bats are killed annually by wind turbines?

How many birds are killed annually by solar arrays and wind turbines?

How is weather effected by solar arrays and wind turbines?

What are the environmental issues around the disposal of worn out wind turbines and solar panels?

What are the environmental consequences of clearing tens of thousands of acres of land to install solar and wind generation farms?

Let's start with those. Don't develop an aneurism thinking on that now, okay?
Click to expand...

More whataboutism, which seems to be all that you Reichtards have any more. You lost all your arguments about why we need the Keystone, so now you're just flinging your porridge to see what sticks to the walls. lol

B8Noz16.jpg


(It's spelled aneurysm and thanks, already had one of those.)
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I'm delusional because I think electric vehicles don't have spark plugs and don't require gasoline?

Or I am delusional because I think that bright thing in the sky is delivering energy to the earth?


That is your attempt to change the topic? Accuse me of not owning any vehicles? I probably should have pity on someone so poorly armed when it comes to intelligent conversations. Do you know what ROI? It's why I have more money than you do because I can do the simple math to tell me what makes me the most money in the long run.
Click to expand...

Let's see a pic of your vehicle with a piece of paper with your handle written on it.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Let's see your source for these claims. Are you claiming that these are permanent jobs, or are they just the jobs building the pipeline?

Some years ago when we lived in a rural county NW of St. Louis, we had a lot of people pushing for a new pipeline build through the county. It was running from the shale oil fields to the refineries in Illinois. A lot of landowners didn't want it, but being a conservative rural area they were persuaded by the promise of jobs and a boost to the economy. So the part of the project in our county lasted but a summer. The workers were all from other areas. The only "boost" came from them staying in hotels and buying food and stuff during their stay. Then they were *poof* gone. Ironically, this pipeline had a rupture in 2019 and caused an oil spill a bit south of where we used to live. Even more ironically, it's part of the Keystone system, and run by Enbridge. Enbridge has its own problems up here in the frozen north, with its line running under the straits of Mackinac.

This map shows the pipelines and how they converge at Wood River in Illinois. All of them cross under the Mississippi near STL. The bottom map has a red dot over the words "Lincoln County." That's where we used to live.

IDBSytf.jpg
Click to expand...

It's 1000 jobs lost on construction, and 11k lost directly to the industry, with 60k more jobs lost in related industries.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2021/0...ay-in-office-by-killing-keystone-xl-pipeline/
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Questions for you:

What company in Arizona got the biggest environmental fine levied against it in the state's history?

How many bats are killed annually by wind turbines?

How many birds are killed annually by solar arrays and wind turbines?

How is weather effected by solar arrays and wind turbines?

What are the environmental issues around the disposal of worn out wind turbines and solar panels?

What are the environmental consequences of clearing tens of thousands of acres of land to install solar and wind generation farms?

Let's start with those. Don't develop an aneurism thinking on that now, okay?
Click to expand...

The risk to birds, bats, and wildlife from petroleum extraction, nuclear, and mining is far, far, far higher than the risk posed by wind turbines.

Cypress said:
Pandering to emotion by posting a picture of a dead owl is not scientific, does not compare relative risk levels, and more importantly it is deceptive and manipulative. You should be above that kind of manipulation.

The fact is that wind power is vastly safer for avian species than fossil fuels and nuclear.

And when I say "vastly safer" it is not even a contest. They are not even remotely in the same ballpark. Wind is so much safer, they cannot even be compared.

Avian deaths per year (Wind power): 7,193
Avian death per year (Fossil fuels): 14,5000,000 (14.5 million)
Avian death per year (Nuclear power): 327,483

Avian deaths per GWh (Wind power): 0.269
Avian death per GWh (Fossil fuels): 5.18
Avian death per GWh (Nuclear power): 0.416

hCN6HBl.jpg


source data: "Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity", Benjamin K. Sovacool, Ph.D., Energy Policy Volume 37, Issue 6, June 2009, Pages 2241-2248 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.011


Should we make wind farms as safe as possible for avian life and bats? Yep. Goes without saying.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Great minds think alike!
Click to expand...

It's fair to point out that Heinlein was right when he coined the acronym TANSTAAFL -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

All energy received comes at a cost. We wealthy nations need to be balancing the costs and choosing wisely, because we can afford to. The continued reliance on fossil fuels will end us.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
It's fair to point out that Heinlein was right when he coined the acronym TANSTAAFL -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

All energy received comes at a cost. We wealthy nations need to be balancing the costs and choosing wisely, because we can afford to. The continued reliance on fossil fuels will end us.
Click to expand...

Too right you are.

I have never heard any informed person say that green energy is completely free of any costs or risks. It all comes down to making the right choices based on science and risk-benefit analysis
 
Cypress said:
The risk to birds, bats, and wildlife from petroleum extraction, nuclear, and mining is far, far, far higher than the risk posed by wind turbines.
Click to expand...

There is a reason this Abstract is at the beginning of your link.

"This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems. The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies."

This paper was written in 2009 when Wind was still at its infancy. Wind accounted for 73.9 TWh per year power in the U.S., Nuclear 798.9 TWh per year and Fossil Fuels 2726.5 TWh per year. As you can clearly see the paper does not take into account the
proportional disparity in energy sources. So, if you put Wind into the Nuclear and Fossil Fuel equivalent, Wind would be responsible for 2.9 Avian Deaths per GWh, and 191.1 Avian deaths per GWh. As you can clearly see much, much higher than Nuclear or Fossil Fuels. Wind is not even close for safety.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Nope. What is myopic is the thinking that somehow a few temporary jobs is worth the environmental risk that falls entirely upon the United States. We get no other benefit -- the oil running through Keystone is Canada's, not ours.

Imagine the cost of cleaning up an oil spill that affects the Missouri River, or the Ogallala Aquifer. Do you think those temp jobs would cover the cost? Where will America's bread basket get water if that is tainted?

Reichwingers only think of the $$ signs flashing before their eyes at the moment, and seem mostly incapable of looking into the future.
Click to expand...

What a load of hysterical bullshit, you just don't having an effing clue! How do you think it's better to transport that oil by rail ffs? For somebody thst claims to be a scientist you are incredibly irrational and emotional.
 
Cypress said:
Too right you are.

I have never heard any informed person say that green energy is completely free of any costs or risks. It all comes down to making the right choices based on science and risk-benefit analysis
Click to expand...

Exactly. The problem we have with the Reichwing though is that they do not value things that cannot be utilized for profit. From the lowliest bubba living in a small home in a rural area, to a wealthy industrialist -- the world and the beings on it are ours to exploit.

You want to protect your state's environment? Build a strong Dept. of Conservative/DNR that has power to regulate hunting and fishing. If you can get those guys to realize that their sport will be gone if we don't manage the planet wisely, then we have a chance. The problem is RW media tells hunters stupid shit like Biden gonna take your guns, Biden gonna close up hunting, Biden gonna ruin jobs by issuing new environmental reg orders, etc. etc.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Rq1hGqt.jpg


Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-depot/

Come back when you've read something a) credible, and b) that contains actual facts.
Click to expand...

Yet another that uses that bullshit website. Of course it's no coincincidence that your buddy Croc o' Shit uses it as well! This is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[4] Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications.[
Click to expand...
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
And there goes the Reichwing myth that Biden killed thousands of pipeline jobs. Nicely done, sir.

The latest fun thing here is a space port. Some private association wants to buy a large chunk of lakeshore property nearby and build a vertical launch site. Like they all do, they're promising 100s of jobs. Turns out that the jobs will go to the construction crew and are of course temporary. The launch control site itself is elsewhere. It will cause massive environmental damage, loss of property enjoyment for those of us who live nearby, light and noise and water pollution, traffic issues (the site is off a two-lane highway miles from Marquette). Our neighbors and us have banded together with an environmental attorney who lives here, and we are enlisting the aid of the Nature Conservancy. The property owner just wants to get shut of it. If we can get the Conservancy to buy it instead -- they already own tracts here -- problem solved.

https://www.mlive.com/news/2020/07/...aceport-site-selected-north-of-marquette.html
Click to expand...

Translation, I'm a typical NIMBY!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top