Will Obama veto the Keystone XL Pipeline Bill passed by Congress?
- Thread starter Gstrand
- Start date
JeremyClarkson
Active member
I sure fucking hope he vetos it. Last thing we need is another dead end energy 'solution' from these cock-smokers in the fossil fuel industry and their whores on Wall Street.
Snowtorious_BIG
Member
Seriously tho that shit better get vetoed
It seems likely to me. Although it was interesting that with all his overt "I will veto this" threats in the SOTU, he didn't use that language with respect to the KXL, just said that there were better things they could be spending time on. So I dunno, could go either way.
It would be basically retarded to veto the thing, but here we are.
It would be basically retarded to veto the thing, but here we are.
Mr.Huck
Active member
Pretty funny how this is all playing out. The pipeline won't have a measurable difference in the quantity of oil coming in from Canada. That is because they are already running an insane amount of tanker trucks. The pipeline won't create a bunch of permanent jobs, because the thing runs almost automatically. There would be a ton of temporary jobs while it is being constructed.
So in a nut shell, the pipeline would be safer than transporting the same amount of oil over open roads by truck. It would create jobs even though they are mostly not permanent. But Obama will not approve it because his liberal base doesn't want it. They don't like oil and think that this somehow contributes to our nations dependence on oil and they want us all to drive Teslas or Prius Hybrids.
So in a nut shell, the pipeline would be safer than transporting the same amount of oil over open roads by truck. It would create jobs even though they are mostly not permanent. But Obama will not approve it because his liberal base doesn't want it. They don't like oil and think that this somehow contributes to our nations dependence on oil and they want us all to drive Teslas or Prius Hybrids.
General_Ripper
Active member
Is it really needed right now? Oil prices are low due to a glut in supply and we want to add more? The pipeline will not even help the U.S. economy as much as it would the Canadians. It's huge for them to get that oil easily down to Lousiana for refinement and export. We will just get a bunch of migrant workers putting it in then the only money will be made by a couple refineries. We really could use the money somewhere else.
General_Ripper
Active member
13315640:Mr.Huck said:
It would've much cheaper to transport by pipeline than tankers trucks.
and then while you're at it look at the amount that spilled when a truck falls over compared to when a pipe bursts.
"The Montana pipeline breach temporarily fouled a city's water supply and emerged as the latest in a string of spills to highlight ongoing problems with maintenance of the nation's 61,000 miles of crude oil pipelines."
"The Montana pipeline breach temporarily fouled a city's water supply and emerged as the latest in a string of spills to highlight ongoing problems with maintenance of the nation's 61,000 miles of crude oil pipelines."
13315743:Mr.Huck said:
you're missing my main point of my last post. Me need to get off oil, and I hope that happens at some point over the next 10 years, and it drastically goes down. And eventually that will one day make this pipeline obsolete.
But hey if a trucker gets hurt in a crash he can then go to the hospital and get the bill covered under Obamacare. You know the thing you said was the most detrimental negative thing going to bankrupt this country. I'm sure second time's the charm.
.Hugo.
Active member
Something to think about....
when transported by truck or train, a crash can cause a lot more damage than just some contamination. All it needs is a spark and that shit will burn. If the fumes get lit that shit will explode. If it happens in a populated area people die. A couple years ago 47 people died in canada when an oil train derailed
when transported by truck or train, a crash can cause a lot more damage than just some contamination. All it needs is a spark and that shit will burn. If the fumes get lit that shit will explode. If it happens in a populated area people die. A couple years ago 47 people died in canada when an oil train derailed
Bombogenesis
Active member
13315667:loganschnur said:
Lol wait... Just the oil from the pipeline is supposed to raise it .7????
Lolz I hope I just read that wrong.
freestyler540
Active member
Is it me or are we blowing our chance for a new future? With low oil prices, should we be focusing on production of innovation. With oil low, productions of goods are now cheaper and trade costs have been alleviated for some time. Instead of shaking in our pants about the market that is going to tank because our economic production still works on a model from the 60's, we should take advantage of this time to try new things and ideas and see what works and what needs to be changed to ensure sustainability and development throughout North America. I am no innovator, but I can see a good idea when someone has one, or willing to work with others to solve problems.
Nope, our 70 year old politicians hope that if we do nothing, the good old days will come back before they die. The pipeline bill should be dropped and reinvested in more sustainable ways. I see nuclear fusion as very promising.
Nope, our 70 year old politicians hope that if we do nothing, the good old days will come back before they die. The pipeline bill should be dropped and reinvested in more sustainable ways. I see nuclear fusion as very promising.
kshaughn
Member
13315949:Scotty_B said:
13315955:milk_man said:
Tesla's are fantastic cars and I would love to own one, but they aren't necessarily as 'green' as people suggest. In general, the plants that make electric cars (especially the batteries) tend to have more emissions/pollutants than the normal car plants. They also obviously use a bunch of electricity to recharge, and we get electricity by burning coal, gas, or nuclear.
That being said, once Tesla is able to make a car with a range of 400+ miles and allows the batteries to last longer than the 7-8 years that they do now, it is going to be an even better car than it is now.
S.J.W
Active member
13315743:Mr.Huck said:
This pipeline has nothing to do with right or left wing politics. It's about the transportation of oil. But I guess shoving your views down peoples throat is just too good to pass up.
There is too much of a dependency on oil and people think that it's the only way. Oil is a finite resource. What are we meant to do when it runs out? Are we then going to look for alternative for energy sources while economic growth falls significantly?
Mr.Huck
Active member
13315949:Scotty_B said:
Who can afford one? The Tesla Model S P85D is definitely fast as hell, but it cost $120k. Even without the high price tag, I'm still not that stoked on it. It is still just a golf cart on steroids. I still like to shift gears.
13315986:kshaughn said:
Good points.
13315995:Uglyboy said:
The pipeline has everything to do with politics. Politics is the only thing that is keeping it from being built. That is a fact. And I'm not shoving my views down anyone's throat. zzzskizzz and I are almost polar opposites ideologically. Sometimes/usually our internet debates get pretty heated. Whatever. I'm not waterboarding anyone with my keyboard. You can agree or disagree or just don't read.
As to dependence on oil. I agree, but I also believe that innovation should drive change, not politicians. Liberals believe that they need to take steps to make change happen faster, like taxing gas more or artificially inflating the price so that people have to buy more electric vehicles, therefore manufacturing a greater market for those vehicles. If companies make great products, people will buy them. Teslas are really expensive but, maybe they or some other country will build one that more people can afford.
The big issue that everyone conveniently ignores is how much energy is used to create alternative energy products. Everyone has been seeking some source of energy that creates a lifetime positive net. So you ultimately get more energy out of it than how much went into it to make it. So far, no one has figured this out. Supposedly the process that might do it is using solar to create ethanol, but right now everyone is driving around in electric vehicles thinking they are saving the planet, but in reality there is little to no difference than driving a gas powered vehicle.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472
As kshaughn astutely pointed out batteries on Teslas last about 7 years right. I have read that it costs about $10k to replace. As someone who does care about the environment and doesn't want his kids to inherit a dead planet, I would ask the following:
Are the batteries recycled?
How do they dispose of the chemicals from the batteries?
In about 3 years, people who jumped on the Tesla bandwagon are going to have to start replacing their batteries. It's going to be pretty interesting to see what the impact is.
I am definitely not anti alternative energy but I am skeptical. I have bought a ton of solar panels and devices that are supposed to charge themselves through solar, and so far, none of them have worked well or for very long. I have had pretty much the same experience with rechargeable batteries.
I am confident that some really brilliant minds will figure it out and there is definitely a market for it even without government interference. It would be awesome if someone could figure out a way to generate net positive energy through the process of recycling batteries, or another process that would generate energy through the elimination of waste. That is what will ultimately save the planet IMO. If there is a way to make money from it, the free market will prevail and someone will figure out a way to do it.
Thank God this ^ dude is willing to be the voice of reason in this thread.
I will never understand the logic of people who think that a need to reduce and ultimately eliminate dependence on fossil fuels must mean that no further oil project should be approved, period. As if you just flip a switch, and everything will suddenly run on solar power. Even taking as read that alternative energy sources are the future, you still should be trying to use current energy sources in the most efficient way possible in the meantime during what is necessarily going to be a multi-decade transition period to green-energy feasibility.
Or I guess we could just abandon all human progress for the past century and go live in the woods; that would also work.
I will never understand the logic of people who think that a need to reduce and ultimately eliminate dependence on fossil fuels must mean that no further oil project should be approved, period. As if you just flip a switch, and everything will suddenly run on solar power. Even taking as read that alternative energy sources are the future, you still should be trying to use current energy sources in the most efficient way possible in the meantime during what is necessarily going to be a multi-decade transition period to green-energy feasibility.
Or I guess we could just abandon all human progress for the past century and go live in the woods; that would also work.
kshaughn
Member
13316127:Mr.Huck said:
To expand more on this point, my dad is in the hotel business and a few years ago looked into buying solar panels to provide electricity to heat the water (which is one of the larger bills a hotel has). When looking into it, he found that the solar panels would end up paying for themselves after about 25 years, which isn't terrible. The only problem with that is that the panels only have a life of about 20 years and would have to be placed by then, so it made no sense to purchase them. Solar power and alternative energy is great, but until it becomes more efficient that it makes sense economically, we are still going to need to use oil/coal.
On a related note, I wish people would make more of an effort into harnessing wave power. When you think about it, solar and wind can only store energy some of the time (when it is sunny or windy enough), but waves are fairly constant and consistent. Waves and the ocean are some of the most powerful forces on the Earth, so it seems like something that we should push as alternative energy. I have heard of a few projects/models to use wave power, but I don't think they ever panned out or are efficient enough yet.
liftedresearcher
Active member
Tesla's and other electric cars are awesome but then you have to consider that 65% of the electricity in North America is created by burning fossil fuels. How much of a difference are they really making? Unless you are you charging the thing with 100% renewable energy, they aren't as emission free as they claim.
Mr.Huck
Active member
13316130:J.D. said:
...Or someone will come up with a way to run all electrical devices by plugging them into a tree. That way we could all live like kings in the woods.
Like you said, why do we have to flip a switch and make it an either/or? If you make one thing obsolete, you have to dispose of it. The trick is to try to get an existing product to run on something cleaner. At Colorado School of Mines, they are working on making ethanol from Switch Grass instead of Corn. Kind of makes sense right? Create fuel from something we don't actually consume for food. If they could do this with a net gain, it would be awesome. Then all they would have to do is re-formulate ethanol so older cars could run on it without it burning up their motors.
Mr.Huck
Active member
13316176:kshaughn said:
So much this! I have always wondered why this isn't widely used now. Out of everything it seems to make the most sense. Seems like it would be pretty simple to have something tethered to the bottom that was somewhat stationary and then something else could move up and down it with the waves turning turbines as it did. I am envisioning something semi-phallic :-D
kshaughn
Member
13316250:Mr.Huck said:
So I did a quick google search on the advantages and disadvantages and there are some legit reasons why we don't see this that much:
1. Research is only at the beginning and the machines currently cost a whole lot to make
2. They have to be able to withstand rough weather and hurricanes
3. Things like wind turbines only can operate at certain wind wavelengths and the same holds true for the wave machines. Places with unreliable or unpredictable wave behavior won't work well.
4. The biggest concern is obviously over the marine ecosystem. These machines are big and loud and will cause issues for marine mammals, especially those that communicate vocally (whales). It can also harm the seafloor habitat for crabs, sea-stars, etc. They can cause issues with private/commercial ships, especially if the fish schooling patterns change. Chemicals used to build the machines will also be extremely harmful for the marine animals. The marine ecosystem is obviously critical to the entire world and oceans need to be cared for, so this is a major roadblock.
5. Lastly, it is hard to get them approved because people who live/work on the coast don't want to be looking at them right off the shore, similar to the issues people have with wind turbines.
steezysteeze
Active member
Barely thought about the thread title and thought it read "Will Obama veto the Keystone XL Pipe Bill passed by Congress?" Thinking that Keystone somehow built a superpipe so large and gnarley the government had to get involved.
Gods_Father
Active member
13315995:Uglyboy said:
oil is abiotic
pigglywiggly
Active member
Oh, the ignorance. Renewable energy cannot supply our current energy demands as a world/nation. We NEED oil and natural gas. If you don't like it, get an engineering degree and try to make a difference with the current situation than just bitch about the fossil fuel situation with your worthless liberal arts degree.
Mr.Huck
Active member
13316534:TOAST. said:
This is something else I have been wondering about. Tomorrow I will be driving up to Vail to coach. It is 100 miles from the city limits of Denver to Vail. For me I'm betting it's pretty close to 250 miles round trip. In the morning I leave the house at 5:00 AM to avoid traffic and because my morning meeting is at 8:00 AM. I don't have to worry about traffic in the morning, but when I drive back tomorrow night I will be in the parade of idiots. So I'm wondering what would happen if you drove your Tesla up in the morning, parked in a standard parking lot that didn't have a recharge station, drove back after skiing and got stuck in typical weekend traffic.
So the question is, regarding battery life, even if you are just going 100 miles, what if you are in stop and go traffic for 4 hours. Would the batteries last? Anyone know the answer to this?
13316484:pigglywiggly said:
Although it's true that renewable energy right now cannot supply our current demands, it very well could and should in the future. Part of the reason that renewables count for so little of our energy production right now is that the giant fossil fuel industry has for many years been advocating for continued use of fossil fuel (duh) and attacking the notion that renewable energy is a viable alternative. All this misleading advertising and incorrect information has set back renewable energy many years. It is high time that the U.S. and the world begin the transition to environmentally friendly energy sources, such as wind, hydro, solar, and potentially nuclear power. I'm not advocating immediately stopping the use of fossil fuels, which would cause chaos, but a gradual switch over a decade or two, which is quite doable, if the corrupt fossil fuel industry would stop attacking renewable energy.. The veto of this pipeline would be an excellent first step in this direction. I also think that if the government partially funds and subsidizes renewable energy and there is popular support, transitioning to renewables is a goal within our grasp. I also think that electric cars are a huge part in curbing emissions. Right now, renewable energy is a small part of energy production because of little public interest, but hopefully people will soon realize that it is a necessity if we are to combat climate change, which is the largest threat in the world. In conclusion, not vetoing this pipeline would be a terrible mistake that would set back the push for renewables even more.
GayWolf420
Active member
13316781:Bart.Man said:
veto'ing the pipe idea is like declaring war on fun. do you guys like fun? then vote for this pipe, please. enough of this socialist lizard "Obama" his dumb words and government intervention. its time to revolt.
Campeador
Active member
Not exactly.
Renewable energy doesn't stoke much interest because in most cases it is not cost effective. The push by governments is mainly driven by ideology rather than practicality. In California, for example, the variability of renewable power sources wreak havoc on the electrical grids, which need consistent flows of power to operate effectively. When there are shortages due to the variability of wind and solar, guess which plants get fired up? The coal and other fossil fuel plants, which are needed to make up for shortages quickly. Basically, most of the supposed benefits of alternative power in terms of emissions get cancelled out.
While I do like the idea of solar and wind power, the problems with their variability and the ability to properly store energy in the grids have not been properly addressed.
Renewable energy doesn't stoke much interest because in most cases it is not cost effective. The push by governments is mainly driven by ideology rather than practicality. In California, for example, the variability of renewable power sources wreak havoc on the electrical grids, which need consistent flows of power to operate effectively. When there are shortages due to the variability of wind and solar, guess which plants get fired up? The coal and other fossil fuel plants, which are needed to make up for shortages quickly. Basically, most of the supposed benefits of alternative power in terms of emissions get cancelled out.
While I do like the idea of solar and wind power, the problems with their variability and the ability to properly store energy in the grids have not been properly addressed.