Keystone XL Pipeline Project thread

[Frodo]

Keystone Backed in Poll by 56% of Americans as Security



By Jim Snyder  Dec 12, 2013 8:00 PM ET

More Americans view the Keystone XL oil pipeline as a benefit to U.S. energy security than as an environmental risk, even as they say Canada should do more to reduce greenhouse gases in exchange for approval of the project.

A Bloomberg National Poll shows support for the $5.4 billion link between Alberta’s oil sands and U.S. Gulf Coast refineries remains strong, with 56 percent of respondents viewing it as a chance to reduce dependence on oil imports from less reliable trading partners. That compares with the 35 percent who say they see it more as a potential source of damaging oil spills and harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

A push by environmental groups against the project may be affecting public opinion: 58 percent of poll respondents say they want Canada to take steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as a condition for approval, with 32 percent opposing such a requirement.

[Sol]

Ugh.

[ElectionsGuy]

That's good. Too bad nothing will happen about this.

[Frodo]

In the end, President Obama may likely back this project to further boost the economy, and as part of any economy-related deal with Republicans. 

[PJ]

Oh God no.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In the end, President Obama may likely back this project to further boost the economy, and as part of any economy-related deal with Republicans. 

Has Obama done anything for the environment?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

[Maxwell]

Good. Let's go already!

[Sol]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

Or don't deliver oil at all and use renewables instead.

[H. Ross Peron]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

Or don't deliver oil at all and use renewables instead.

Which isn't exactly accomplishable in a few years.

[Sol]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

Or don't deliver oil at all and use renewables instead.

Which isn't exactly accomplishable in a few years.

Of course not.

My main beef with the Keystone pipeline is the thought process behind it- it seems to come from the school of thought that says "Why bother with the environment? Let's just drill for oil forever!" Which is pretty objectionable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

Or don't deliver oil at all and use renewables instead.

Which isn't exactly accomplishable in a few years.

Solar is damn cheap at 74 cents a watt.

[Indy Texas]

In the end, President Obama may likely back this project to further boost the economy, and as part of any economy-related deal with Republicans. 

As he should. But I think it's disingenuous to be pitching this as an energy security measure when much of the oil coming through that pipeline is going to be leaving the country once its been refined. And it certainly isn't going to create this magical $2/gallon gasoline some Republicans insist they can deliver.

[Indy Texas]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

Or don't deliver oil at all and use renewables instead.

Which isn't exactly accomplishable in a few years.

Solar is damn cheap at 74 cents a watt.

In what universe do we measure energy costs by the watt?

Projected Forward Levelized Costs for Plants Online in 2018
Solar Thermal Cost per MWh = $261.50
Solar Photovoltaic Cost per MWh = $144.30
Nuclear Cost per MWh = $108.40
Conventional Coal Cost per MWh = $100.10
Natural Gas CCC Cost per MWh = $65.60

There's nothing "damn cheap" about solar power.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

Or don't deliver oil at all and use renewables instead.

Which isn't exactly accomplishable in a few years.

Solar is damn cheap at 74 cents a watt.

In what universe do we measure energy costs by the watt?

Projected Forward Levelized Costs for Plants Online in 2018
Solar Thermal Cost per MWh = $261.50
Solar Photovoltaic Cost per MWh = $144.30
Nuclear Cost per MWh = $108.40
Conventional Coal Cost per MWh = $100.10
Natural Gas CCC Cost per MWh = $65.60

There's nothing "damn cheap" about solar power.

Out of date projections. Today we have.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2013/09/xcel-energy-proposes-to-triple-solar.html?page=all

[PJ]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

Or don't deliver oil at all and use renewables instead.

Which isn't exactly accomplishable in a few years.

Of course not.

My main beef with the Keystone pipeline is the thought process behind it- it seems to come from the school of thought that says "Why bother with the environment? Let's just drill for oil forever!" Which is pretty objectionable.

In addition, you literally cannot drill oil forever.

[Goldwater]

Good. Let's go already!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Solar is damn cheap at 74 cents a watt.

In what universe do we measure energy costs by the watt?

A universe in which we are measure the cost to accomplish a particular peak load.  Given the inability of solar to provide 24/7 power, the capital costs per Kwh will be higher because a solar plant will have fewer hours to recoup the investment.  However, in many areas, peak load occurs due to heavy AC use.  Since the conditions which cause the heaviest AC use also happen to be excellent ones for solar power, it is quite conceivable that solar would be useful as part of the mix, tho obviously as base load generating system it is still pricey.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

And having it sent via pipeline to be refined in the U.S. is much safer (and would contribute less GHGs) than the alternative--ship it via oil tanker to China.

[Cory]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

[DINGO Joe]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

And having it sent via pipeline to be refined in the U.S. is much safer (and would contribute less GHGs) than the alternative--ship it via oil tanker to China.

Meh, it would be replacing Colombian then Venezuelan and then Mexican oil, which would be shipped to China.  Really, North America is about 4 years away from being unable to absorb all of it's oil production so somebody's oil is getting shipped.  There's no guarantee that the Canadian oil won't get loaded up on tankers and shipped out to China.

[DINGO Joe]

Solar is damn cheap at 74 cents a watt.

In what universe do we measure energy costs by the watt?

A universe in which we are measure the cost to accomplish a particular peak load.  Given the inability of solar to provide 24/7 power, the capital costs per Kwh will be higher because a solar plant will have fewer hours to recoup the investment.  However, in many areas, peak load occurs due to heavy AC use.  Since the conditions which cause the heaviest AC use also happen to be excellent ones for solar power, it is quite conceivable that solar would be useful as part of the mix, tho obviously as base load generating system it is still pricey.

The cleanest, cheapest,  most efficient setup would be solar displacing peaker NG plants and NG combined cycle plants replacing coal baseload plants.

[DINGO Joe]

The economic impact of the Keystone for the US would be about nil.  Canada wants the pipeline in hopes of getting a higher price for their oil.  Currently, Canada's inability to get their oil into the global market means it fetches a heavily discounted price compared to Brent or Gulf oils like Louisiana Light or Mars.  Many Midwestern and Rocky Mountain refineries have taken advantage of this and provide cheaper products with higher margins than other regions in the US. 


One other thing about tar sands oil, it has to be diluted to flow through pipelines, which requires natural gasoline to be piped up to Canada and combined with the tar oil to flow it back down (and then separated at the refinery.  It actually is arguable that it's cheaper and more efficient the ship tar sands by train, if (and it's a big if) there are enough specialized heated rail cars to ship the oil.  Tar sands goes to a Memphis area refinery this way.

[badgate]

The left getting infected by knee-jerk bourgeois environmentalism is unfortunate. This pipeline is significantly safer than the alternative (delivering the oil by rail) anyway.

Or don't deliver oil at all and use renewables instead.

Which isn't exactly accomplishable in a few years.

Which means it will never happen unless it begins on day 1 of a new President's first term.

[IceSpear]

I eagerly await the GOP proclamations of how this means Democrats don't listen to the public when they killed expanded background checks (~90% support) and raising the minimum wage (~65% support).