Biden kills Keystone XL permit.... again

[Cypress]

And then you blinded ME with science.

Great minds think alike!

[ThatOwlWoman]

Great minds think alike!

It's fair to point out that Heinlein was right when he coined the acronym TANSTAAFL -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

All energy received comes at a cost. We wealthy nations need to be balancing the costs and choosing wisely, because we can afford to. The continued reliance on fossil fuels will end us.

[Cypress]

It's fair to point out that Heinlein was right when he coined the acronym TANSTAAFL -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

All energy received comes at a cost. We wealthy nations need to be balancing the costs and choosing wisely, because we can afford to. The continued reliance on fossil fuels will end us.

Too right you are.

I have never heard any informed person say that green energy is completely free of any costs or risks. It all comes down to making the right choices based on science and risk-benefit analysis

[Sailor]

The risk to birds, bats, and wildlife from petroleum extraction, nuclear, and mining is far, far, far higher than the risk posed by wind turbines.

There is a reason this Abstract is at the beginning of your link.

"This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems. The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies."

This paper was written in 2009 when Wind was still at its infancy. Wind accounted for 73.9 TWh per year power in the U.S., Nuclear 798.9 TWh per year and Fossil Fuels 2726.5 TWh per year. As you can clearly see the paper does not take into account the
proportional disparity in energy sources. So, if you put Wind into the Nuclear and Fossil Fuel equivalent, Wind would be responsible for 2.9 Avian Deaths per GWh, and 191.1 Avian deaths per GWh. As you can clearly see much, much higher than Nuclear or Fossil Fuels. Wind is not even close for safety.

[cancel2 2022]

Nope. What is myopic is the thinking that somehow a few temporary jobs is worth the environmental risk that falls entirely upon the United States. We get no other benefit -- the oil running through Keystone is Canada's, not ours.

Imagine the cost of cleaning up an oil spill that affects the Missouri River, or the Ogallala Aquifer. Do you think those temp jobs would cover the cost? Where will America's bread basket get water if that is tainted?

Reichwingers only think of the $$ signs flashing before their eyes at the moment, and seem mostly incapable of looking into the future.

What a load of hysterical bullshit, you just don't having an effing clue! How do you think it's better to transport that oil by rail ffs? For somebody thst claims to be a scientist you are incredibly irrational and emotional.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Too right you are.

I have never heard any informed person say that green energy is completely free of any costs or risks. It all comes down to making the right choices based on science and risk-benefit analysis

Exactly. The problem we have with the Reichwing though is that they do not value things that cannot be utilized for profit. From the lowliest bubba living in a small home in a rural area, to a wealthy industrialist -- the world and the beings on it are ours to exploit.

You want to protect your state's environment? Build a strong Dept. of Conservative/DNR that has power to regulate hunting and fishing. If you can get those guys to realize that their sport will be gone if we don't manage the planet wisely, then we have a chance. The problem is RW media tells hunters stupid shit like Biden gonna take your guns, Biden gonna close up hunting, Biden gonna ruin jobs by issuing new environmental reg orders, etc. etc.

[Minister of Truth]

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-depot/

Come back when you've read something a) credible, and b) that contains actual facts.

Yeah, I'll find a fake news source for you.

[cancel2 2022]

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-depot/

Come back when you've read something a) credible, and b) that contains actual facts.

Yet another that uses that bullshit website. Of course it's no coincincidence that your buddy Croc o' Shit uses it as well! This is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[4] Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications.[

[ThatOwlWoman]

Yeah, I'll find a fake news source for you.

Why would you bother producing another one?

[cancel2 2022]

And there goes the Reichwing myth that Biden killed thousands of pipeline jobs. Nicely done, sir.

The latest fun thing here is a space port. Some private association wants to buy a large chunk of lakeshore property nearby and build a vertical launch site. Like they all do, they're promising 100s of jobs. Turns out that the jobs will go to the construction crew and are of course temporary. The launch control site itself is elsewhere. It will cause massive environmental damage, loss of property enjoyment for those of us who live nearby, light and noise and water pollution, traffic issues (the site is off a two-lane highway miles from Marquette). Our neighbors and us have banded together with an environmental attorney who lives here, and we are enlisting the aid of the Nature Conservancy. The property owner just wants to get shut of it. If we can get the Conservancy to buy it instead -- they already own tracts here -- problem solved.

https://www.mlive.com/news/2020/07/v...marquette.html

Translation, I'm a typical NIMBY!

[Cypress]

There is a reason this Abstract is at the beginning of your link.

"This article explores the threats that wind farms pose to birds and bats before briefly surveying the recent literature on avian mortality and summarizing some of the problems with it. Based on operating performance in the United States and Europe, this study offers an approximate calculation for the number of birds killed per kWh generated for wind electricity, fossil-fuel, and nuclear power systems. The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million. The paper concludes that further study is needed, but also that fossil-fueled power stations appear to pose a much greater threat to avian wildlife than wind and nuclear power technologies."

This paper was written in 2009 when Wind was still at its infancy. Wind accounted for 73.9 TWh per year power in the U.S., Nuclear 798.9 TWh per year and Fossil Fuels 2726.5 TWh per year. As you can clearly see the paper does not take into account the
proportional disparity in energy sources. So, if you put Wind into the Nuclear and Fossil Fuel equivalent, Wind would be responsible for 2.9 Avian Deaths per GWh, and 191.1 Avian deaths per GWh. As you can clearly see much, much higher than Nuclear or Fossil Fuels. Wind is not even close for safety.

All science is provisional until years or decades of continuing analysis and experimentation results in a widespread consensus. The article provides a peer reviewed analysis which had passed muster in a reputable scientific publication.

Here is a 2013 study that provides the same conclusion: compared to fossil fuels and nuclear, wind farms are vastly more safe for avian wildlife and bats. By a country mile.

The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power

Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences vol. 9, no. 4, December 2012, 255-278 (June 2013)

Within the uncertainties of the data used, the estimate means that wind farm-related avian fatalities equated to approximately 46,000 birds in the United States in 2009, but nuclear power plants killed about 460,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 24 million.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=2198024

[Bigdog]

“Broken rail is one of the leading causes of accidents.”.

That is a lie.

And it is politicians that put bribes and donations over public safety.

[anatta]

That is a hell of a lot of environmental damage for 35 permanent jobs, some of which would be Canadian jobs.

you forgot the 71k construction jobs -and the pipeline is all US Steel - more jobs
Also millions in tax revenues lost by the states.

Biden is a disaster out to kill the energy sector.

Our inability to build a FUCKING PIPELINE
thru 3 administrations speaks volumes of government confusion.

[T. A. Gardner]

I can't help you if you have poor reading comprehension skills. You might want to read my earlier post before you ask stupid questions about how much it will cost to charge an electric car with solar panels.

I never said it would be totally free of costs. I said it would not require gasoline, spark plugs or radiator and transmission flushes. Because of regenerative braking, brake servicing will be less but not non existent. It pays to live in a state that doesn't require annual vehicle inspections because everyone here is liberal and keeps their cars in good shape without the government forcing them to.

A short in the system from a hard rain storm or driving through a deep puddle? ROFLMAO.. Do you know anything about cars in general, let alone electric vehicles. Electric cars have a computer but then so do any other car manufactured since 1990. Once you get past the computer, an electric car is much simpler to maintain than an ICE. I'll bet the mechanics love it when you come in after every rain storm because you car stopped working.

That's proof of the opposite. Electric cars are more dependent on complex electronics and then there's the battery. They are much harder to maintain in the long run than an internal combustion engine vehicle.

[Bulletbob]

It's fair to point out that Heinlein was right when he coined the acronym TANSTAAFL -- There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

All energy received comes at a cost. We wealthy nations need to be balancing the costs and choosing wisely, because we can afford to. The continued reliance on fossil fuels will end us.

what will end us is democrat breeding at amazing rates and making stupid decisions .