Keystone Pipeline & Presidential Election 2012

[waldo]

TimG, here I thought you were boycotting this thread given some wag persistently calling on you to pony-up and... finally... provide a citation to support your earlier stated claim; i.e., your claim that, "studies that look at green jobs conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every green job created". Uhhh... citation request!

It all comes down the the subsidies. If an energy source is not viable without subsidies for every kWH produced then it is not scalable because no government has the fiscal capacity to replace our existing energy with subsidized sources. If renewables were even remotely viable without subsidies there would be no debate: people would use them even if there was a slight cost premium. The fact that renewables are never used unless the government offers massive subsidies is all the evidence I need to know they are a waste of money at this time.

each and every time you utter the same per/kWh nonsense, you will be called on it. Again, per/kWh is a metric fossil-fuel lobbyists, like you, attempt to leverage... it is nothing more than a reflection on the maturity of fossil-fuels; i.e., the market penetration and volume production that decades long lead-time affords over renewables. Of course, per/kWh is your preferred go-to metric to presume to justify fossil-fuels still... still... receiving the inordinate proportion of energy related subsidy money. Per/kWh is the preferred go-to metric you readily trot-out whenever the actual comparative subsidy dollar numbers, fossil-fuels vs. renewables, are brought forward. Of course you know those comparisons have been brought forward, now several times, in past MLW threads... would you like a replay of the numbers?

it's been noted in the past, but since you've now done it again: you've just now again correlated viability to applied subsidy. Given the overwhelming historical and current disproportionate percentage of subsidies that fossil-fuels receive as compared to renewables... given your viability/subsidy premise... just how can you view fossil-fuels as being, uhhh... viable?

[TimG]

each and every time you utter the same per/kWh nonsense, you will be called on it.

Waldo, repeating that 2+2=5 does not make it any less wrong. The only measure that means anything is subsidy per kWH and anyone who has any comphrension of engineering understands this. You refusal to acknowledge this point simply shows that you have no understanding of the issues involved.

[punked]

Waldo, repeating that 2+2=5 does not make it any less wrong. The only measure that means anything is subsidy per kWH and anyone who has any comphrension of engineering understands this. You refusal to acknowledge this point simply shows that you have no understanding of the issues involved.

NO that is not the only measure. The future also matters because when fossil fuels rich a point where they cost more then alternatives, you need to have investment in the alternatives because by then it is too late to just be starting the investment. That is when you get rolling black outs and your economy gets frozen. We only have to look at cuba in 1990 to see this. You can't just start planning for a new future when that future is upon you.

[TimG]

NO that is not the only measure. The future also matters because when fossil fuels rich a point where they cost more then alternatives, you need to have investment in the alternatives because by then it is too late to just be starting the investment.

Peak oil/gas is a myth because price rises lead to more supply. If prices rise to the point where renewables are viable without subsidies then any over priced renewable infrastructure built today will be obsolete (in other words the "investment" won't help with the stated problem).

The model for shale gas works well for renewables. The government funded the R&D in the 70s and 80s but did nothing with it. Once it became commerically viable private investment took off. There is no rational reason to be subsidizing the production of renewable electricity today. Let it sit on the shelf until it is economically viable.

Edited January 8, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Waldo, repeating that 2+2=5 does not make it any less wrong. The only measure that means anything is subsidy per kWH and anyone who has any comphrension of engineering understands this. You refusal to acknowledge this point simply shows that you have no understanding of the issues involved.

no - it's the only metric you continue to flog... when you attempt to distract from scrutiny leveled against fossil-fuel subsidy levels, historical and current... to attempt to distract the questioning of why fossil-fuels have always received a most significant and disproportionate percentage of subsidy dollars. When challenged you never provide an answer, a rationale, as to why fossil-fuels still require subsidies, particularly as compared to renewables?

you also turn-tail when challenged on your oft-repeated claim that presumes to link viability with subsidy... cause, like... that fly's in the face of the level of subsidies that fossil-fuels receive, hey?

as for viability, this post speaking to renewable levelized costs in Germany, is a handy/convenient MLW search reach - one that speaks to a representative example of the viability of renewables that you try, oh so hard, to deny... I do have some new levelized number updates, at large, but am still reading up on related articles... Wild Bill asked a legitimate question earlier, one that perked my interest enough to check for recent studies/updates - stay tuned, hey?

[TimG]

to attempt to distract the questioning of why fossil-fuels have always received a most significant and disproportionate percentage of subsidy dollars.

Here is a basic economics question which you will likely refuse to answer because it illustrates how vacuous your arguments are:

If you slap a 1% tax on something required will use go down?

What is if slap a 100% tax?

The 1% tax will theoretically have an effect but in practice it will be unmeasureable.

Doubling the price of something will likely have a measureable impact.

Fossil fuel subsidies (even if I include the fake subsiides you like) are less than 1% of the cost.

Without subsidies the cost of renewables would at least double the cost.

IOW - subsidies to fossil fuel would not affect their use - but without subsidies no one would use wind or solar.

Those are the facts that matter.

The absolute dollar values are irrelevant.

[waldo]

... question which you will likely refuse to answer...

a question I refuse to answer! Clearly, your chutzpah is exceeded only by your own vacuous positions.

in a related follow-up, based upon your repeated and ongoing refusal to answer, I hereby declare "null & void", your previous claim that, "studies looking at green jobs conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every green job created". You have been repeatedly pushed and prodded to substantiate that claim... refusing to answer.

Fossil fuel subsidies (even if I include the fake subsiides you like) are less than 1% of the cost.

citation request

[Shady]

Waldo likes to hide behind the subsidy issue. He's still against fossil fuel projects (unless of course it's China, then he's ok with them), even if all subsidies were eliminated. Which by the way, I'm completely for. But even if one looks at projects that receive subsidies. Projects like Keystone make the government money and provide real jobs. Projects like Solyndra suck up tax money and create ZERO real jobs.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Shady

[waldo]

Waldo likes to hide...

speaking of KXL and 'hiding', we've yet to receive your reply in regards this earlier posting exchange... let me again ask the question, just what is it you're now asking Obama to approve - within this latest GOP led, must decide within 60-day limit? Approve, just what, hey Shady?

Even former Obama administration officials think Keystone should be approved. It's only the job destroyer himself that's holding it up. He's probably too busy killing the coal industry to worry about the pipeline project at the moment.

what should be approved, hey Shady? When TransCanada advises it won't have it's own preferred selection route made/presented until the 'fall of 2012', just what are you calling for approval of... a phantom unknown route? When the U.S. State Department advises it won't have the required environmental impact assessments completed until early 2013... to allow it to issue the required permit (presuming on the assessments supporting approval), just what are you calling for approval of... a phantom unknown route, one that doesn't have any environmental impact assessment and permit sanction from the U.S. State Department? Just what are you asking for approval of, hey?

[Shady]

speaking of KXL and 'hiding', we've yet to receive your reply in regards this earlier posting exchange... let me again ask the question, just what is it you're now asking Obama to approve - within this latest GOP led, must decide within 60-day limit? Approve, just what, hey Shady?

I guess you're still quite ill-informed. However, I'm not suprised you're changing the subject of subsidies and Solyndra.

Obama Delays Keystone Pipeline at Least 12 Months

[waldo]

I guess you're still quite ill-informed. However, I'm not suprised you're changing the subject of subsidies and Solyndra.

ok, now I understand your confusion! Please be advised the initial proposed KXL pipeline route and it's associated TransCanada 'ginned-up' environmental assessment are off the table. As earlier stated, again, please be advised that TransCanada has provided an estimate that it apply and identify it's preferred/proposed route alternative by 'late 2012'. As earlier stated, again, please be advised that the U.S. State Department has provided an estimate that required... independent, environmental assessments should, in turn, be available by 'early 2013'.

as for Solyndra, I will gladly reacquaint you will the timeline showing exactly the involvements of Bush admin, Obama admin and career civil servants... let me know - anything to help with your Obama Derangement Syndrome.

[RedDog]

So America decides to continue funding both sides of the war on terror.

[Shady]

ok, now I understand your confusion! Please be advised the initial proposed KXL pipeline route and it's associated TransCanada 'ginned-up' environmental assessment are off the table. As earlier stated, again, please be advised that TransCanada has provided an estimate that it apply and identify it's preferred/proposed route alternative by 'late 2012'. As earlier stated, again, please be advised that the U.S. State Department has provided an estimate that required... independent, environmental assessments should, in turn, be available by 'early 2013'.

as for Solyndra, I will gladly reacquaint you will the timeline showing exactly the involvements of Bush admin, Obama admin and career civil servants... let me know - anything to help with your Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Obviously you didn't read the article. Instead, you just repeat the same old debunked talking points.

[Shady]

Anyways, looks like Obama's decided to not approve the Keystone pipeline. Apparently though he felt that expediting the Solyndra loan was the right move, costing $500 million dollars in tax money. But for Keystone, that creates thousands of jobs and requires ZERO tax dollars, he just can't see the benefit.

Obamanomics on full display!

[punked]

Anyways, looks like Obama's decided to not approve the Keystone pipeline. Apparently though he felt that expediting the Solyndra loan was the right move, costing $500 million dollars in tax money. But for Keystone, that creates thousands of jobs and requires ZERO tax dollars, he just can't see the benefit.

Obamanomics on full display!

Apparently he and the state department told the GOP there would not be enough time to an environmental assessment (required by the law) and they sent him the bill anyway. Welcome to the GOP shooting America in the foot again. Although from the Romney thread I already know you know little about what you talk about.

[August1991]

Newt's on a roll:

Who would have thought the name of a Canadian PM would figure in a US presidential campaign?

Note: I liked the line about "never bowing down to a Saudi king".

Edited January 18, 2012 by August1991

[Shady]

Newt's on a roll:

Great link! Holy crap, Newt is definitely on a roll! I really liked the part about Obama driving Canada out of a partnership with the United States, and into a partnership with China. Something that would be inconceivable, except when this president is involved. As Newt said, it's sheer stupdiity.

Just when you think Obama can't get any worse, he goes and proves us wrong. Heckuva job Obamie.

[RedDog]

Obama wanted to avoid Keystone being an election issue. I don't know where he's getting his advice in an endless trail of bad guidance but he just made it THE election issue today when he committed to continued reliance and dependance on entire nations wanting to kill Americans while insulting their neighbours, friends and largest trading partners driving them overseas to alternate arrangements with their commodity. This administration is clearly intent on destroying America. They have to be removed.

[Guest American Woman]

TransCanada can reapply for a permit once it's finished rerouting the pipeline.

[Guest American Woman]

Apparently TransCanada is going to reapply for a permit:

No surprises here. TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said today his company will re-apply for a presidential permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, and will continue its work with officials in Nebraska on an alternative route that avoids the Sand Hills region.

One has got to wonder whether this whole situation might have been avoided had Congress not insisted on the 60-day deadline for a decision.

TransCanada will re-apply for Keystone XL permit

Not sure what Congress accomplished by pushing the issue...seems as if things are moving in the same direction they have been right along.

Edited January 19, 2012 by American Woman

[Wild Bill]

Apparently TransCanada is going to reapply for a permit:

No surprises here. TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said today his company will re-apply for a presidential permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, and will continue its work with officials in Nebraska on an alternative route that avoids the Sand Hills region.

One has got to wonder whether this whole situation might have been avoided had Congress not insisted on the 60-day deadline for a decision.

TransCanada will re-apply for Keystone XL permit

Not sure what Congress accomplished by pushing the issue...seems as if things are moving in the same direction they have been right along.

Of course they'll reapply for a permit! However, they are obviously hedging their bets and proceeding immediately to make a deal with China. There is no guarantee that with Obama in power they will ever get an approval. If he is re-elected that could mean another 4 year wait.

Smart business says, proceed as if the pipeline is merely a possibility. Meanwhile, go for the sure money! If the pipeline goes through some day, fine! Even better, if they are shipping to China they are in a better negotiating position with Uncle Sam - they simply won't need him as badly!

[Guest American Woman]

Of course they'll reapply for a permit! However, they are obviously hedging their bets and proceeding immediately to make a deal with China. ....

Don't know where you are getting your information from; this is from the statement issued by TransCanada:

This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL.

[jacee]

No thanks to playing.

A country that forms its policy on the advice of arts academics would be doomed to fail. Pol.sci, public policy, and American studies graduates advising us how to create jobs? No thanks.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that arts grads lean very far left. The bias is self-evident.

Isn't Harper a poli sci grad?

Gee ... all that leftist leaning policy in the PMO!

[waldo]

from a U.S. perspective - counter to the TransCanada commissioned "Perryman Group Study", per claims made by TransCanada Corporation and the American Petroleum Institute, an independent report from Cornell University's Global Labour Institute:

extending upon the aforementioned post where I detailed key points from the independent Cornell study... showing TransCanada's job claims can't be substantiated... showing that total jobs created (inclusive of short-term construction jobs) would be in the order of 2-to-3000 jobs... showing that total permanent jobs would likely be 'less than 100'.

[Smallc]

Sine TransCanada has no idea how many people they need to build the pipeline.

Any study that shows that small number is absolute crap. The number of spinoff jobs alone would be staggering (manufacturing, construction, service - and we're talking all kinds of service jobs, from fuel hauling to food preparation). There is no way this pipeline can be built with that small a number people, considering the number needed for much shorter construction jobs.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Smallc