Fellow Democrats press Obama to approve Keystone, following environmental report


#1

:clapping:foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/01/fellow-democrats-press-obama-to-approve-keystone-following-environmental-report/
Great news! Maybe we will get somewhere finally. As stated in news report, the blocking of the pipeline was due to it having to cross the border; not to being unacceptable by affected states. Strange, our borders have been allowing criminal/other illegal penetration for years but a solid opportunity for domestic oil and employment with Canadian Enterprise has been blocked. Keeping a glimmer of hope alive.:hammering:


#2

Quoting from the news article:

Begich and Landrieu are in tough, 2014 re-election efforts in conservative-leaning, energy-producing states.

Perhaps their position is not surprising, since it is likely to be popular with voters in their states.

I know little about the Keystone pipeline, and whether it really is hazardous. Butt its supporters also make claims (about jobs and oil prices) which are equally questionable.


#3

With the advent of solar and wind power I truly question the need for any domestic oil projects. Sorry folks. What a lot of folks may not realize is the USA has enough drilled and barreled oil in the Federal Reserve to supply the whole planet for at least 200 years. So why are we still drilling any oil anywhere?


#4

I don’t see that.
The inventory of the USA strategic petroleum reserve is about 700 million barrels which is less than 40 days of US consumption.


#5

Achieving energy independence has long been a goal of the the US. My understanding is that this is considered to secure the economy against events in unstable parts of the world. Canada already has achieved this goal, which is why they export so much oil.

The Keystone Pipeline would be important because it allows the Alberta oil sands to be transported out of Canada in a safe manner. Rail transport has shown itself to be dangerous when hauling such a large amount of bitumen.

The oil sands have been an economic boom for the province of Alberta, and it has helped fuel the increase in Canada’s GDP. There is a lot of money to be made. At current prices, the amount of recoverable oil is estimated to be $285-billion dollars (Canadian) or $254 (US.) Current production is fairly low, and expected to increase, which means the current economic boom will accelerate.


#6

The “advent” of solar and wind power? Some “advent”! Obama’s political contributors have
had their investments “bailed” out at taxpayer’s expense. As for wind power - you can blow that candle out. That is the ugliest, non productive, boom bazzle, con job everyone can see.
Talk about ruining the environment! It wasn’t good enough for the late Ted Kennedy but it got pushed onto average citizens! Ugly, unsafe and useless! Your argument that the USA has adequate oil for the whole planet is pure fabrication. Story telling in plain language! We need our own darn oil and we need the jobs. We need to be rid of mid east oil dependency. Arguments against our countries needs to support stupid tricks is done and done!


#7

That’s what we are told. And lets just say we are not told the truth about a lot of things.

People still think that diamonds are a rare jewel too. Think again. Most of the mines in the world are owned and controlled by one family. And there is no shortage of them either, at least not a real one. They are in fact so plentiful as to be worth about the same as costume jewelry. (This was revealed, if I remember correctly, during a 60 Minutes telecast and a discussion of the slavery involved in mining for diamonds.)

Hydrogen engines and motors have been possible sine the early 50’s. The first functional electric engine was created prior to the combustion engine but that was quickly locked up and the inventor murdered. Wind and solar power are more than feasible and have been for decades as well. It just depends on who is making sure who gets wealthy off it, as to these innovations becoming available. Always has been.


#8

Wind power has been expanding for quite some time. Here, the turbines have been making unproductive fence rows useful for over 20 years and produces 1/4 of our electrical production. It will never replace coal and oil, but it is a good supplemental system.


#9

Really?

wri.org/blog/china-invests-billions-international-renewable-energy-projects


#10

Do you have a source or proof for that contention ?


#11

:ehh: After watching the interview of Pres Obama by Bill O’Reilly I felt very discouraged. The President was asked about the Keystone Pipeline being passed environmentally as safe. He answered that it still was not completely approved and showed no hopefulness in his providing
positive action. :hmmm:


#12

Environmentalists are not interested in protecting the environment. Their first interest is breaking the capitalist economy, and protecting the environment is a convenient way to do that.


#13

I’m guessing you were NOT a hard science major in school. Conspiracy theories are oh so much more believable when you have no personal appreciation of the facts.

Yes, hydrogen engines are a snap to build. The problem isn’t building hydrogen engines. The problem is that hydrogen isn’t an energy SOURCE, it is just a means of storing it. If you want hydrogen, you need to split water molecules to get it and that costs more energy to do than you get out of burning it in the engine. Unlike oil, there are no vast lakes of hydrogen underground waiting to be pumped out!

Probably unlike you, I’ve professionally investigated the feasibility of using solar and wind power for some of my clients’ properties. It NEVER pays for itself versus buying juice off the grid. Except in the case of government give-aways, the time to recoup investment is always longer than the effective life of the generators. Turbines are not going to last 15-20 years with no maintenance, nor are solar panels. This is why these companies go belly up the moment the government subsidies on them expire.

Electric cars are cool toys and did predate the gas engine. They died out for the same reason so few want them today: poor range. I do like the Tesla cars. Unfortunately, I’m not a candidate for an $80,000 car (the one with the necessary minimum range). The Volt is a cool toy, but simply can’t pay its own way. With a 30 mile electric range you simply cannot save more than 1.5 gallons of gas a day compared to my very similar Chevy Cruze Eco (40mpg lifetime average). That’s $6 a day in gas savings, maximum (and that assumes you can recharge at work. $3 a day max savings if you only charge at home). Electric cars died out because people liked being able to refill a tank and keep driving. No assassinations required.

Personally I hope that the future of energy exploitation is in space. We’ve achieved so much since science learned to artificially manipulate magnetism via electricity. Did you know that the equations for gravity are suspiciously similar to those of magnetism? If science cracks open the ability to induce local artificial gravity fields, going to space and back will cost 99% less than it does today and the whole solar system will become viable fields for resource exploitation! Or it may be another revolutionary innovation. That’s the kicker: nobody knows what new discovery will turn the world on it’s head next.


#14

Might be so in Iowa. Not true where I live. Nowhere near enough wind, and in the hills the direction and force is utterly erratic. In the deep hollows there’s almost no wind at all. Not much future for wind power in a lot of places.


#15

I know they aren’t practical in some places. And I really don’t expect turbines to produce a significant amount of energy nationally. But regionally they are a good supplement to coal. Unless there are some significant improvements, they aren’t going to realistically supply enough energy beyond being a support system.

The government’s goal is to have wind energy produce 20% of US electricity by 2030. I think they are overly optimistic. Right now they only produce about 4% of the nations electricity.


#16

Better hope that climate change makes things windier then.


#17

If wind turbines are an economical and efficient way of producing power in some places, then good for them! They’ll be installed because of their economy and efficiency, and the government doesn’t have to do anything to get that done.

I do have trouble with “government goals” and government fiats designed to reach those goals regardless of feasibility or the suffering it might cause some members of the populace.


#18

I agree. The government usually causes more harm than good.


#19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.