Keystone Pipe Line Stopped Again

Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
This time by a judge expressing climate change concerns.  Every major car company is now working to produce electric cars.  

I think it's time for progress and give up on that monstrosity and look to a cleaner future devoting more time sources for renewable power.
Vote for the other candidate
«13456719

Replies

  • mindyabinessmindyabiness Posts: 4,997 Captain
    I think they should get the permits and approvals in place before they start construction.
    It only makes sense if the price of oil is high. Canada can figure it out in the meantime.
    Either way it's not going to affect my bottom line...
    Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
  • PROFINITYPROFINITY Posts: 248 Deckhand
    edited November 2018 #3
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,491 AG
    edited November 2018 #4
    Judge will be overruled. He said the government did not follow their own rules of showing the reason why the pipeline should be built. They just need to do an analysis to show the reason for the decision to build it. That reason can even be political if they can back it up. The company and the administration will produce the needed material and move forward. 

    i am not sure a judge can base a decision on personal concerns as mister tried to imply. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    cadman said:
    Judge will be overruled. He said the government did not follow their own rules of showing the reason why the pipeline should be built. They just need to do an analysis to show the reason for the decision to build it. That reason can even be political if they can back it up. The company and the administration will produce the needed material and move forward. 

    i am not sure a judge can base a decision on personal concerns as mister tried to imply. 

    Entirely possible, but the Keystone still faces obstacles to its completion.  The bigger point, at least to me on several levels, is do we really need it, and it's contribution to air and groundwater pollution.  

    Presumably, we are all sportsman that enjoy the outdoors and the many benefits it offers to all of us.  It would seem to me, that as a group we should oppose possible threats to the resources we enjoy, especially with all the new technology becoming available for renewables.

    Renewables will have their own set of problems to be corrected, but overall I see it as a much better solution to energy needs that fossil fuels. 
    Vote for the other candidate
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 3,723 Captain
    There is a significant amount of the population that is totally bent on insuring this beautiful country fails. Every step forward they use lawyers to fight any progress. They always lose in the end because perpetual losers are at the top.

     I guess we will all have to deal with this in the future. I just don't have much tolerance for whining, weakness, and  losers
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends President Trump
  • pottydocpottydoc The thriving metropolis of Umatilla Posts: 3,346 Captain
    Mister-Jr said:
    cadman said:
    Judge will be overruled. He said the government did not follow their own rules of showing the reason why the pipeline should be built. They just need to do an analysis to show the reason for the decision to build it. That reason can even be political if they can back it up. The company and the administration will produce the needed material and move forward. 

    i am not sure a judge can base a decision on personal concerns as mister tried to imply. 

    Entirely possible, but the Keystone still faces obstacles to its completion.  The bigger point, at least to me on several levels, is do we really need it, and it's contribution to air and groundwater pollution.  

    Presumably, we are all sportsman that enjoy the outdoors and the many benefits it offers to all of us.  It would seem to me, that as a group we should oppose possible threats to the resources we enjoy, especially with all the new technology becoming available for renewables.

    Renewables will have their own set of problems to be corrected, but overall I see it as a much better solution to energy needs that fossil fuels. 
    There might be a better solution, but it won’t be in place for a bunch more years. Until then, the only answer is fossil fuels. 
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,491 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    cadman said:
    Judge will be overruled. He said the government did not follow their own rules of showing the reason why the pipeline should be built. They just need to do an analysis to show the reason for the decision to build it. That reason can even be political if they can back it up. The company and the administration will produce the needed material and move forward. 

    i am not sure a judge can base a decision on personal concerns as mister tried to imply. 

    Entirely possible, but the Keystone still faces obstacles to its completion.  The bigger point, at least to me on several levels, is do we really need it, and it's contribution to air and groundwater pollution.  

    Presumably, we are all sportsman that enjoy the outdoors and the many benefits it offers to all of us.  It would seem to me, that as a group we should oppose possible threats to the resources we enjoy, especially with all the new technology becoming available for renewables.

    Renewables will have their own set of problems to be corrected, but overall I see it as a much better solution to energy needs that fossil fuels. 
    Yes, we need it. It is safer than transporting all that oil by truck or rail. Some seem to think if we don't have the pipeline, that oil ain't coming here. It is going to get shipped one way or the other.

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
     cadman said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    cadman said:
    Judge will be overruled. He said the government did not follow their own rules of showing the reason why the pipeline should be built. They just need to do an analysis to show the reason for the decision to build it. That reason can even be political if they can back it up. The company and the administration will produce the needed material and move forward. 

    i am not sure a judge can base a decision on personal concerns as mister tried to imply. 

    Entirely possible, but the Keystone still faces obstacles to its completion.  The bigger point, at least to me on several levels, is do we really need it, and it's contribution to air and groundwater pollution.  

    Presumably, we are all sportsman that enjoy the outdoors and the many benefits it offers to all of us.  It would seem to me, that as a group we should oppose possible threats to the resources we enjoy, especially with all the new technology becoming available for renewables.

    Renewables will have their own set of problems to be corrected, but overall I see it as a much better solution to energy needs that fossil fuels. 
    Yes, we need it. It is safer than transporting all that oil by truck or rail. Some seem to think if we don't have the pipeline, that oil ain't coming here. It is going to get shipped one way or the other.
    In five years there will a hundred electric cars to chose from.  All auto companies are making significant investments in
    electric vehicles, so I don't understand the need for this pipeline.  
    Vote for the other candidate
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 4,208 Captain
    "In five years there will a hundred electric cars to chose from"

    Yeah, I'm not buying that as true.  I remember hearing the same thing 15 years ago.  
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    There is a significant amount of the population that is totally bent on insuring this beautiful country fails. Every step forward they use lawyers to fight any progress. They always lose in the end because perpetual losers are at the top.

     I guess we will all have to deal with this in the future. I just don't have much tolerance for whining, weakness, and  losers
    I have no idea what you are talking about.  Is it meant to be an insult?
    Vote for the other candidate
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    edited November 2018 #12
    Google a map of pipelines. There are pipelines running everywhere! Yet these enviro-natzies continue to stop just this one. It is all political they could care less about any environment! 
     Weakening this country is the ultimate goal. 
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • conchydongconchydong Pompano BeachPosts: 4,816 Captain
    Mister-Jr said:
     cadman said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    cadman said:
    Judge will be overruled. He said the government did not follow their own rules of showing the reason why the pipeline should be built. They just need to do an analysis to show the reason for the decision to build it. That reason can even be political if they can back it up. The company and the administration will produce the needed material and move forward. 

    i am not sure a judge can base a decision on personal concerns as mister tried to imply. 

    Entirely possible, but the Keystone still faces obstacles to its completion.  The bigger point, at least to me on several levels, is do we really need it, and it's contribution to air and groundwater pollution.  

    Presumably, we are all sportsman that enjoy the outdoors and the many benefits it offers to all of us.  It would seem to me, that as a group we should oppose possible threats to the resources we enjoy, especially with all the new technology becoming available for renewables.

    Renewables will have their own set of problems to be corrected, but overall I see it as a much better solution to energy needs that fossil fuels. 
    Yes, we need it. It is safer than transporting all that oil by truck or rail. Some seem to think if we don't have the pipeline, that oil ain't coming here. It is going to get shipped one way or the other.
    In five years there will a hundred electric cars to chose from.  All auto companies are making significant investments in
    electric vehicles, so I don't understand the need for this pipeline.  

    I am not convinced that electric cars are the answer. After all they need to be charged, usually by power derived from fossil fuels, and then where in the heck are they going to dump all of the used up batteries that can no longer be recycled? Environmentalists sometimes cut their nose to spite their face. 
    The fires in California are a example of environmental lobbies not allowing proper forestry management. Every year more and more forest and homes are burning and now the fires are in the Hollywood liberals neighborhoods. I wonder if they will change their tune now.

    “Everyone behaves badly--given the chance.”
    ― Ernest Hemingway

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    Google a map of pipelines. There are pipelines running everywhere! Yet these enviro-natzies continue to stop just this one. It is all political they could care less about any environment! 
     Weakening this cousins the ultimate goal. 
    It's coming


    Vote for the other candidate
  • The MelManThe MelMan Posts: 3,997 Captain
    Keeping the oil in the pipeline and off the tankers keeps our oceans a lot safer.  Logical?  Let's try thinking for a change.
    2012-2013 FloridaSportsman BCS Bowl Poll Champion

    Northwest Nascar Champion 2012, 2017

    "2011-2012 BCS Bowl Poll Champion".
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,491 AG
    They need oil for all the plastic parts in those electric cars. 
    Gasoline engine cars will be on the road for another 50 years. Plus all the other uses for oil 

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • mplspugmplspug Palmetto FloridaPosts: 8,641 Admiral
    In 5 years unicorn ranches will be common.

    Captain Todd Approves

  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,491 AG
    Keeping the oil in the pipeline and off the tankers keeps our oceans a lot safer.  Logical?  Let's try thinking for a change.
    that is the part they miss. Even if electric cars become common, there will be a need for oil and having it run through a pipeline is safer than across the ocean in a tanker or by rail or by truck. Heck, I hope we reduce the demand for oil with alternative vehicles to the point we don't have to import any and just rely on our production and Canada. That would be great. It would also change the makeup of the middle east without all that oil money coming in. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    No one can stop progress.  



    Vote for the other candidate
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    edited November 2018 #20
    cadman said:
    They need oil for all the plastic parts in those electric cars. 
    Gasoline engine cars will be on the road for another 50 years. Plus all the other uses for oil 

    cadman said:
    They need oil for all the plastic parts in those electric cars. 
    Gasoline engine cars will be on the road for another 50 years. Plus all the other uses for oil 
    Plastic is not biodegradable and will be replaced sometime in the future.  What happens to all the plastic we use now in products that become outdated and are discarded?


    Vote for the other candidate
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    Google a map of pipelines. There are pipelines running everywhere! Yet these enviro-natzies continue to stop just this one. It is all political they could care less about any environment! 
     Weakening this cousins the ultimate goal. 
    It's coming


    Dream on. 
     If you know anything about trucks/transportation you would understand what a myth the electric truck is. 
    2013 Pathfinder 22 TE , 150 Yamaha,
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    Mister-Jr said:
    Google a map of pipelines. There are pipelines running everywhere! Yet these enviro-natzies continue to stop just this one. It is all political they could care less about any environment! 
     Weakening this cousins the ultimate goal. 
    It's coming


    Dream on. 
     If you know anything about trucks/transportation you would understand what a myth the electric truck is. 
    I know at the end of the day it's about making more money.  
    Vote for the other candidate
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,491 AG
    edited November 2018 #23
    Here is an interesting article on the Tesla Semi, Seems it needs the energy required to operate 4000 homes to recharge in the 30 minutes it claims and the current electric grid can't handle that. 

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/tesla-s-electric-truck-needs-the-energy-of-4-000-homes-to-recharge-say-researchers/

    Also, the Tesla semi will retail around $200,000.

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • mindyabinessmindyabiness Posts: 4,997 Captain
    cadman said:
    Here is an interesting article on the Tesla Semi, Seems it needs the energy required to operate 4000 homes to recharge in the 30 minutes it claims and the current electric grid can't handle that. 

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/tesla-s-electric-truck-needs-the-energy-of-4-000-homes-to-recharge-say-researchers/


    Then there would have to be more semis. Or.... the trucks would become smaller and even more numerous. Or .....this charging problem would hamper distribution and create a need for more manufacturing plants and distribution centers spaced closer together.
    Or .....the technology would be catapulted forward and batteries would become smaller and lighter and by the time they were depleted, solar chargers on the top of the rig would have charged the next bank of super lightweight batteries
    Or..... it would become apparent that storing energy isn't feasible yet.
    If it wasn't worth a try it wouldn't be happening.
    Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
  • pottydocpottydoc The thriving metropolis of Umatilla Posts: 3,346 Captain
    Mister-Jr said:
     cadman said:
    Mister-Jr said:
    cadman said:
    Judge will be overruled. He said the government did not follow their own rules of showing the reason why the pipeline should be built. They just need to do an analysis to show the reason for the decision to build it. That reason can even be political if they can back it up. The company and the administration will produce the needed material and move forward. 

    i am not sure a judge can base a decision on personal concerns as mister tried to imply. 

    Entirely possible, but the Keystone still faces obstacles to its completion.  The bigger point, at least to me on several levels, is do we really need it, and it's contribution to air and groundwater pollution.  

    Presumably, we are all sportsman that enjoy the outdoors and the many benefits it offers to all of us.  It would seem to me, that as a group we should oppose possible threats to the resources we enjoy, especially with all the new technology becoming available for renewables.

    Renewables will have their own set of problems to be corrected, but overall I see it as a much better solution to energy needs that fossil fuels. 
    Yes, we need it. It is safer than transporting all that oil by truck or rail. Some seem to think if we don't have the pipeline, that oil ain't coming here. It is going to get shipped one way or the other.
    In five years there will a hundred electric cars to chose from.  All auto companies are making significant investments in
    electric vehicles, so I don't understand the need for this pipeline.  
    Maybe, but the vast majority will stil be driving gas and diesel powered vehicles. The range on the electrics is not much more now than it was ten years ago. The range on the 2-3 semi trucks being devolved is supposedly several 100 miles. The regular ones are about 1000, if I remember correctly. Plus, the infrastructure to recharge electrics on longer trips is minuscule at this point, with no plans to expand it much.  
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,491 AG
    I agree sooner or later Semis might not be diesel. but I am betting on natural gas or Hydrogen to be the winner over electric. 


    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    edited November 2018 #27
    You can not stop progress Progress on electric trucks happening faster than expected, Daimler says AUSTIN, TX. There was no hiding the excitement from Roger Nielsen, president and CEO of Daimler Trucks North America, when speaking about the development of electric trucks.

    The progress is happening at a “greater speed than expected,” he said. Neil Abt | Nov 03, 2018 AUSTIN, TX. There was no hiding the excitement from Roger Nielsen, president and CEO of Daimler Trucks North America, when speaking about the development of electric trucks. The progress is happening at a “greater speed than expected,” he said. Related: Daimler unveils two all-electric Freightliner trucks When adding in the strong truck market and the continued advancement of the company’s automation push,

     Nielsen had many reasons to be upbeat during a media roundtable at American Trucking Associations’ annual Management Conference & Exhibition. Just prior to the conference, Daimler met with about 30 customers who were able to test drive electric trucks.

     Several customers will be taking delivery of their own electric models for further testing “within days,” he said. This follows the June unveiling of the all-electric Freightliner eCascadia heavy-duty and Freightliner eM2 medium-duty models. In September, Daimler announced it was leading a $155 million investment in Proterra Inc., a manufacturer of electric charging systems based in California.


    https://www.fleetowner.com/equipment/progress-electric-trucks-happening-faster-expected-daimler-says
    Vote for the other candidate
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 27,491 AG
    edited November 2018 #28
    Daimler also says Tesla's claims about their trucks defy the law of physics. 

    BTW, we are all supposed to be in self driving cars by 2020 model year which is only a year away. Don't be impressed by timelines given to the media. 


    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    cadman said:
    Daimler also says Tesla's claims about their trucks defy the law of physics. 


    What did you expect them to say?  
    Vote for the other candidate
  • pottydocpottydoc The thriving metropolis of Umatilla Posts: 3,346 Captain
    Mister-Jr said:
    You can not stop progress Progress on electric trucks happening faster than expected, Daimler says AUSTIN, TX. There was no hiding the excitement from Roger Nielsen, president and CEO of Daimler Trucks North America, when speaking about the development of electric trucks.

    The progress is happening at a “greater speed than expected,” he said. Neil Abt | Nov 03, 2018 AUSTIN, TX. There was no hiding the excitement from Roger Nielsen, president and CEO of Daimler Trucks North America, when speaking about the development of electric trucks. The progress is happening at a “greater speed than expected,” he said. Related: Daimler unveils two all-electric Freightliner trucks When adding in the strong truck market and the continued advancement of the company’s automation push,

     Nielsen had many reasons to be upbeat during a media roundtable at American Trucking Associations’ annual Management Conference & Exhibition. Just prior to the conference, Daimler met with about 30 customers who were able to test drive electric trucks.

     Several customers will be taking delivery of their own electric models for further testing “within days,” he said. This follows the June unveiling of the all-electric Freightliner eCascadia heavy-duty and Freightliner eM2 medium-duty models. In September, Daimler announced it was leading a $155 million investment in Proterra Inc., a manufacturer of electric charging systems based in California.


    https://www.fleetowner.com/equipment/progress-electric-trucks-happening-faster-expected-daimler-says
    Mr, I didn’t post anything that even remotely suggested hat electric vehicles won’t be happing. What I did post is absolutely correct. The problem with all the electrics so far is range, and places to charge them. I travel over 300 miles one way at least 20 times a year. As do many others. Until people can do that without a lengthy recharge time, most of them are not going to buy electrics. And putting a few chargers at rest areas and service plazas isn’t going to do it. They would need hundreds. Plus, the non interstate roads get traveled heavily, too, so you would need thousands more. That’s not happing in the next five years. In ten, it might be underway. The cars aren’t the problem, the batteries are. And there hasn’t been much change there since n a while. No doubt electric vehicles are coming, but we need oil between now and then. As somebody already posted, it’s going to get here one way or other. Pipelines are the safest, and cheapest ways to do it.
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,685 AG
    edited November 2018 #31
    • mplspug said:
      In 5 years unicorn ranches will be common.

      Here is start
    http://evadoption.com/future-evs/

    Forbes;

    Both mainstream and upstart automakers are planning to debut no fewer than 100 electrified vehicles in the U.S. by 2022. The question is whether the nation is equipped to handle them, especially with regard to public charging stations.

    Vote for the other candidate
Sign In or Register to comment.