American jobs: Trump to approve Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines...today!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by aaronvan, Jan 24, 2017.

  1. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #1
    America First!
     
  2. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #2
    the real Americans won't be first.
     
  3. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #3
  4. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #4
    Thank god we are building another pointless pipeline.
     
  5. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #5
    How many people died in that oil spill (of which 170,000 liters has already been recovered) -vs- how many died in the Quebec oil train crash?

    Pipelines are much safer.
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    Yea, nobody gives a **** about cancers resulting in oil spills into water supplies. Those people can just **** themselves if they don't die in a fiery fashion (the only deaths that actually matter apparently).

    Really? There's NOTHING safe about putting a pipeline over one of the three largest water aquifers (that supplies the middle third of the nation) in the country. Think a little.
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    America first is why we want to make it easier for Canada to sell their oil to the rest of the world instead of us?
     
  8. macmee Suspended

    macmee

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
  9. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    I am NOT an expert on pipelines, and I haven't investigated the keystone and dakota access pipelines enough to judge, but I don't get the meaning of linking such article. An accident happened, a bad one; I get that.
    But should we stop stuff any time an accident happens? Should we ban cars? Should we ban planes? Should we ban space travel?
     
  10. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #10

    I think you mean Canada First!
    --- Post Merged, Jan 24, 2017 ---
    Definitely not. I think we all know someone we'd like to launch into space ;)
     
  11. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    I will have to wait until the payload is equivalent to a mid-sized town...
     
  12. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #12
    Look into it. Pipelines have been empirically shown to be quite unsafe. There is a reason oil pipelines are never run through well-off rich white neighborhoods.

    The truth is there is no safe way to transport oil. Trains crash, boats leak. They're all various shades of bad.

    The only safe thing is to work towards ending our dependence on oil, rather than expanding it. By building yet another pipeline, it is saying we are ok with adding to the amount of oil we consume daily. We should be going the other way, and reducing the amount of oil we consume daily.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 24, 2017 ---
    Moving large quantities of oil, no matter the means, is unsafe. Why not just burn it where it is and send the energy over wires? Much safer.
     
  13. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    While I certainly I don't disagree that we should work towards ending our dependence on oil, we still have to work with what we have until a feasible, long term solution is in place.
    But again, not an expert; I am out of my league here by my own admission.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    Oil profits first.

    People ... a distant second.
     
  15. aaronvan thread starter Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #15
    Every silver lining has a cloud, eh? American jobs = long faces for liberals.
     
  16. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #16
    Yeah. Liberals hate jobs. :rolleyes:
     
  17. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #17
    If you want to end dependance on oil at some point you have to actually take action. Trump is proving he doesn't give a **** about long term.
     
  18. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #18
    Do you realize how many wires, poles, transformers etc. would be needed to transfer power from let's say Egypt to Greece? That would be an ecological disaster.
     
  19. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #19
    The Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines go to Egypt and Greece?!?! Quick, someone call Donny because he things there are American pipelines.
     
  20. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #20
    It was an example. I thought you could figure it out. Transporting energy through wires would be an ecological disaster, and I am also pretty sure that much energy would be dissipated (some expert might fill in here) causing the need to burn more oil than needed.
     
  21. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #21
    Look, Trump wants to end inefficient government spending, so he issues a hiring freeze. This is a reasonable approach to ending a problem.

    You can't on one hand say you want to end depending on oil while at the same time building more pipelines. That would be like trying to end inefficient government spending by hiring more redundant government employees.

    Let's work with the pipelines we have, not build more, while instead spend building resources on a more long term solution. Everything is feasible once you have a plan, and nothing is feasible if you keep insisting on doing things the old way.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 24, 2017 ---
    Transmission of AC electricity over wires is actually very efficient, 95+% efficiency over very long distances. THe inefficiency is a drop in the bucket compared to the general inefficiencies of burning oil to move oil. Source: The PHD in electrical engineering that is sitting next to me right now.
     
  22. HEK macrumors 68030

    HEK

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    #22
  23. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #23
    As I said, I am not an expert and I don't know the solution to this specific problem. I honestly haven't an idea. I know that for now we have to work with oil. Strategically, we have to get rid of it. As the tactics of doing it, I don't think that reducing oil availability right now is the key, especially with a broken infrastructure and nothing in sight that can replace it quickly in an efficient manner. You can't risk hyperinflation as that would completely halt the need for research and infrastructure.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 24, 2017 ---
    Thanks to your PhD friend.
    How much infrastructure would we have to build in order to carry the same level of energy that carrying oil would produce?
     
  24. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #24
  25. haxrnick macrumors 6502a

    haxrnick

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    #25
    Wasn't sure if you would be willing to go or not. :p
     

Share This Page