2024 was the *earliest date* if they hadn't been stopped by any litigation. There would've been litigation ultimately so a realistic timeline was 2025-2030. When biden canceled the project only 8% of it had been built. Keystone pipeline cancelation was something he had to throw lefties. He still approved more drilling permits in his first year than trump did. Biden also approved the willow project which is the largest active project that will break ground..
We can issue a export ban which biden wants to do but then Europeans will get fleeced and they'll stop supporting Ukraine possibly. It's a lose lose situation. We should issue a export ban and keep as much oil here as we can but we can't do that with an ongoing war that's complicating things. The ukraine war is restraining biden from actually fixing the issue. It sucks cuz Americans are getting fleeced
I’m not sure if this is meant to be a gotcha at me as I’m ok with nuclear. I was concerned about the waste and safety but the latest generation of technology does appear safe. I’ve also stated that many NIMBY concerns regarding wind and solar can be dealt with also with new technology. Except the producers overall interest isn’t cheaper to the consumer. Building the pipeline does expand the market but that doesn’t mean that it would necessary translate to lower prices as oil is a global commodity.
We had the largest US oil bust a few years ago because US companies produced too much oil, caused hundreds of billions in bankruptcies and massive job losses..... Energy really doesn't do "free markets". And Conservatives are the most opposed to nuclear because it's expensive and requires a lot of government.
It wasn't, it was a practical problem with the statement that moving away from fossil fuels is a path to energy independence. I hope you are right and someday we have a bunch of high efficiency wind and solar farms providing abundant renewable energy. I don't see it happening on a time scale that would make it reasonable to harm domestic oil production now. To me, the better strategy is pursuing both avenues. Why not have both increased supply of fossil fuels and an increase in alternatives? Expanding the market creates a downward pressure on prices. That is basic supply and demand. If you increase supply but demand remains the same, prices go down. The bankruptcies were BECAUSE prices dropped. Companies investing too much money chasing oil to sell at the high price and not accounting for the fact that producing more will lower the price of oil seems like a failure to understand basic economics. Oh by the way, US oil production is back up to where it was before the bust, so we weren't producing too much oil after all, there were just over leveraged companies. Nuclear doesn't require a lot of government, government has inserted itself into nuclear (which also drives up the cost). It is entirely possible to have 100% no government nuclear energy, we just don't do things that way in America. I'm all for less government involvement.
Yea there are practical problems to expanding alternatives to fossil fuels but there are also practical problems to expanding fossil fuels. For example much of the resistance to the Keystone pipeline wasn’t just because of Climate Change but from property owners and Native American groups along the pipeline route. New Technology is improving rapidly in production, transmission and efficiency in things like wind, solar and nuclear. Given the negatives with fossil fuels which even you acknowledge (giving more power to OPEC) it only makes sense to move to renewables faster than we should be. The oil the Keystone pipeline would’ve moved is already being extracted. It would move It much faster to refinement which is a benefit to the producers and expand the market for them but the downward pressure at the pump isn’t that clear. The producer doesn’t have an interest in lowering prices since oil is already a globally traded commodity. Getting it faster to the refinery is more incentive to maximize profit. We’ve seen this several times during the history of the oil industry most recently with the oil glut. Producers even with better technology are less interested in reducing prices but in maintaining higher prices. It’s why the ND oil fields are largely bust now even though oil could still be extracted. Producers no longer find it profitable to extract. You’re making my point that the interest is chasing profit rather than lowering costs at the pump. You’re showing why even building new oil infrastructure doesn’t necessarily translate to lower prices at the pump. Yes government is involved in nuclear. You might disagree but I think the vast majority of people understand there is need for government regulation of nuclear (and fossil fuel production and refinement) given the risk. Even without government involvement building a nuclear plant isn’t cheap. It takes a lot of concrete and steel and those are still at high prices. I’m not an expert in this but from what I know is that most private companies aren’t willing to build nuclear in their own without government involvement in financing.
Just 18 percent satisfied with state of nation: Gallup https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ercent-satisfied-with-state-of-nation-gallup/
by the same token, in a Trump vs. Biden contest, it would be a referendum on Trump, w Biden winning easily just like 2020. the Gallup poll showing 18% satisfaction suggests that a contest between Biden and everyone else but Trump, would be a referendum on Biden. Gallup poll also shows that Trump is way ahead of other GOP candidates.
Prices dropped because US producers drilled too much and OPEC+ flooded the market with cheap oil to knock down US shale. Too much supply from the "free market" and "state owned enterprises" caused supplies to drop. Energy is too important to leave in the hands of only the private market as history has born out.
You look at these polls in the completely wrong way. These polls just show the massive upside that biden has in his numbers. When he has a good debate performance and when he hits the trail every day and people see him they'll turn to him more. I dont know why people point to bidens polling on his age as somehow a bad thing. It only shows he has nothing but upside. He negotiated this debt ceiling for over 3 hours with mccarthy. Hes up for the job and he'll do fine in the debates. People need to look at these numbers as biden having massive upside.
Which is why the answer is to develop all of them instead of hindering one. Yes, but once they have the easement (which they did) you just ignore that resistance and keep building. It wasn't the resistance that stopped the pipeline, it was Biden cancelling the permits. Slowing down domestic production is what gives more power to OPEC. Increasing domestic production dilutes OPEC's power. We should be developing all forms of energy production, but nuclear most of all. More refined gasoline hitting the market creates downward pressure at the pump. The oil bust was because there was too much investment too quickly that didn't account for OPEC releasing oil to price them out. Slow, steady production growth with cost saving measures (like a pipeline, instead of trucking or moving the oil by rail) mitigates that risk. Increasing supply lowers prices when demand is constant. They don't want to build something highly regulated for which the permission to build can go away at any time (check out the list or map of cancelled nuclear power plants) without the government kicking in on the cost. They would be more willing to build privately if they knew there was less red tape and that they were going to be able to operate the plant.
Slowing down domestic production is what gives more power to OPEC. Increasing domestic production dilutes OPEC's power. We should be developing all forms of energy production, but nuclear most of all. More refined gasoline hitting the market creates downward pressure at the pump. The oil bust was because there was too much investment too quickly that didn't account for OPEC releasing oil to price them out. Slow, steady production growth with cost saving measures (like a pipeline, instead of trucking or moving the oil by rail) mitigates that risk. Increasing supply lowers prices when demand is constant. They don't want to build something highly regulated for which the permission to build can go away at any time (check out the list or map of cancelled nuclear power plants) without the government kicking in on the cost. They would be more willing to build privately if they knew there was less red tape and that they were going to be able to operate the plant.[/QUOTE] You literally have no idea what you're talking about at all. The administration is pumping billions into small module reactors and the IRA has billions for nuclear subsidies...
There hasn't been a new nuclear power plant that started construction since the 1970s. You can literally look all of them up on wikipedia, they have a list. There are only two new reactors at one existing plant (Vogtle) that started construction in 2013, and the most recent one before that started construction in 1978. List of commercial nuclear reactors - Wikipedia Meanwhile, here is the List of cancelled nuclear reactors in the United States - Wikipedia I never mentioned the Biden administration's position on Nuclear power, so I don't know how you could possibly think stating it is a rebuttal to anything I have said.
Yes I'm well aware of that. I'm involved in climate policy. The Inflation reduction act had billions to save quite a few nuclear plants from going offline. The California plant was due to go offline but the bill saved it. Are you aware of a SMR is? The plan for the administration is to roll these out throughout coal country. The administration and doe are rolling back regulations and they're going all in on these. Watch this to understand what a SMR is
Wrt Keystone, I'm surprised to see our resident libertarian so enthusiastic about the government using eminent domain for a private enterprise Less surprised to see him in favor of privately-owned nuclear power plants
