Biden cancels oil pipeline - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15152092
Transporting oil by road and rail is more labour intensive than using pipelines and supports additional jobs in hospitality when truckers eat, drink and sleep en route.

Joe just saved your job.
#15152152
AFAIK wrote:Transporting oil by road and rail is more labour intensive than using pipelines and supports additional jobs in hospitality when truckers eat, drink and sleep en route.

Joe just saved your job.


True. Capitalism seeks to remove all overhead, hence the pipeline project was precisely that, remove jobs by making it easier to transport oil. Joe basically blocked the removal of this overhead in the transport of oil. Thus, saving jobs. That said, the train of capitalism cannot be stopped, only slowed by these sorts of actions. The inevitable is that these jobs will eventually disappear when renewable become more dominant or whatever other technologies come online. Hence why taking the jobs argument in these sorts of things like @Finfinder does is tragically hopeless. Ultimately fighting for jobs here and there misses the big picture. The bigger problems to come...
#15152158
Finfinder wrote:Let them all eat cake in the meantime.


You do not live here, so I assume you have not been keeping up on the news. Oil was selling for very little before Covid. This is due to decreased demand. Than means less and les people are buying it.

After Covid hit, oil was selling for negative numbers. That means oil producers were literally paying people to take it.

All this to say that Biden did not get rid of jobs. They were already gone.
#15152182
Rancid wrote:New jobs can be created to help produce and distribute renewable energy.

Renewable energy has never been an alternative to oil and gas. It is not even an option. Renewable energy complexes are too costly to build.

AFAIK wrote:Transporting oil by road and rail is more labour intensive than using pipelines and supports additional jobs in hospitality when truckers eat, drink and sleep en route.

Joe just saved your job.

That is not how business decisions are made. Companies cannot choose costly way of doing business when cheaper one is available. No company can stay in competition without using cheap and efficient modern technologies.

In this case, companies behind the pipeline project will probably abandon the project completely and move their capital out of the US for a country whose government is not this much authortarian like one in Washington.
#15152204
AFAIK wrote:Transporting oil by road and rail is more labour intensive than using pipelines and supports additional jobs in hospitality when truckers eat, drink and sleep en route.

Joe just saved your job.

Well, that is a cynical view isn't it? If the alternative is to use trucks rather than pipelines and still use fossil regardless, then I rather take the pipeline. Cheaper in the long run, safer, more convenient.
If you are telling me there is a viable reasonable alternative to energy production, such as renewables, nuclear, etc... then good riddance the pipeline, otherwise this is not good.
#15152205
Istanbuller wrote:
Renewable energy has never been an alternative to oil and gas. It is not even an option. Renewable energy complexes are too costly to build.




There is a massive hydroelectric in Canada. HydroQuebec wants to power New England. Where I live, the route the power lines would take has already been secured. Once the politics are done, wiring up could be done in about a year.

We need to develop alternatives, because the world needs them. Which means we need to make them an option.

But we already have a renewable source.
#15152219
Rancid wrote:The benefit of renewables like solar is that the power grid becomes decentralized, which means it's much harder for hackers or state actors to take down the power grid.

In my opinion, the move to renewables is also a national security issue. Conservatives should be for solar just on the national security benefits.

late wrote:You're assuming sanity.

I have 30 panels on my roof with microinverters as well. How many panels do you guys have?
#15152252
@XogGyux
I agree that pipelines are safer and all things being equal I'd prefer oil and gas to flow through them. At this point we need to keep it in the ground though. If we can stall new fossil fuel infrastructure for a few more years it will no longer be able to compete with renewables and it won't be built ever.
#15152269
AFAIK wrote:@XogGyux
I agree that pipelines are safer and all things being equal I'd prefer oil and gas to flow through them. At this point we need to keep it in the ground though. If we can stall new fossil fuel infrastructure for a few more years it will no longer be able to compete with renewables and it won't be built ever.

I agree with this. And that is why I am not a fan of this move. It angers conservatives/corporate democrates while being an empty token to environmentalists/green energy people, because it is an empty token. A real concesion would be a pledge to revamping the federal goverment's energy utilization? Maybe investing in electric vehicles for all federally purchased vehicles from now on? Perhaps funding research on nuclear fusion and/or safer fission energy?
I not going to pretend to be surprised that Biden will be a major disapointment for most environmentally concious people. I said it when those pretending to be "centrists" kept saying that Biden was "extreme left"... no.

As far as I am concerned, the right approach is not to ban this, but to push for better, safer, greener technologies. Economics will make sure to cancel the pipeline at its due time.

Imagine, supporting our American, green energy companies, while at the same time incentivizing them to build right here in this country. You address multiple problems at once... Jobs, green energy, preventing china to steal our IP, etc.
#15152271
Rancid wrote:0 at the moment.

I'm getting quotes on replacing my roof. After that, I'm getting quotes on solar panels!

https://petersendean.com/ does both roofing and panels. Basically, you want to figure out what your electric rate is, particularly in the summer months when you're running AC. In California, because of cap-and-trade, they jack up the price the more electricity you use. So you might start with enough to run a refrigerator, washer and dryer at $0.18 per KWh, but then they start jacking the price up fast to where you might be paying $0.37 per KWh. That's California though. Other states don't have that, so you have to look at how much you can generate (if your're in the sunbelt) vs. the price of panels (which are coming down in price as performance improves). In California, it's a no brainer because of cap-and-trade and tax credits. In South Dakota, or somewhere like that, it might not pay.

late wrote:You are reducing the national to the personal, which is a lazy hypocrisy.

How is it hypocrisy? I criticize Republicans all the time. While I don't hate them quite as much as you do, I still loath them. You're the one preaching that Republicans aren't on board with solar panels. Do you practice what you preach? I'm gathering the answer is "No." Which is to say, that you don't have any solar panels. So what does that say about your sanity? I'm not a Republican so I can't speak for them, but as a conservative I have 30 solar panels with Enphase microinverters. Over their lifetime so far (as of this writing, because I looked, because I can, because I have microinverters too) I have generated 58.33 megawatt hours of electricity--or basically almost 12 megawatt hours per year. Does sitting in front of your TV cursing Republicans make you feel better if you don't have your own panels? Do you opt in for the more expensive electricity you can get from your public utility for buying premium solar and wind power? I'm guessing that's probably a big "No" too.

See, I don't need any virtue signaling, "I'm doing my part to save the planet", sort of stance, because I can do math. California has cap-and-trade taxes, and they have solar credits as does the federal government. I can generate electricity for myself at $0.075 a kilowatt hour, whereas I would have to pay PG&E a cumulative average of about $0.31 a kilowatt hour. A set of 30 panels with microinverters runs about $35k installed. After the tax credit, on a 6% 20-year note, my solar note bill is less than half of what I'd pay retail. I still have to pay metering and connection fees and my gas bill. However, my overall bill is about half what it would be without the panels.

So what's your excuse?

late wrote:Republicans left sanity a long time ago, and they're not coming back.

They haven't left sanity. They just don't represent your interests or mine. The Democrats aren't any different. You just need to know physics and math at a reasonable level to figure out their bullshit, because they are all lying to you.

AFIAK wrote:f we can stall new fossil fuel infrastructure for a few more years it will no longer be able to compete with renewables and it won't be built ever.

Unlikely. It's really hard to beat the low-end torque of Diesel. So that will likely be around for a long time, preferring electricity or Diesel-electric. In the Bay Area, chock full of greenies and communists, they extended BART in the East Bay by using COTS rail cars that used standard gauge rails and Diesel-electric over the wider gauge electric car system with a third electric rail.
VP Kamala Harris endorses riots...

Further, the Texas vision of energy for the last […]

Is USA a Plutocracy?

So if 'Trumpism' applies to Trump supporters, wh[…]

Trump on trial

I would LOVE to see laid out clearly in state cou[…]

Election 2024 Thread

3) If Trump or Trump like candidate runs then the[…]