- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Did you know that many engineers are going back to wooden bridges because they last so long?
Wooden bridge resurgence? Emmet County builds one : News : UpNorthLive.com
Timber Bridge Construction ? Quality Timber Bridges Constructed by Bridge Builders
No, I'd rather they take their Canadian oil and transport it across Canadian land, instead of putting American land at risk for Canadian profits.
Not really. They'd just be another boondoggle waste of public money.
Today a grandmother fell down her stairs and died somewhere in America. We should immediately ban all stair cases. Somewhere else, a child choked to death on solid food, we should ban solid foods. Als in breaking news snow is cold and children get frostbit, children should be banned from touching snow and parents should be jailed if they allow their kids near that danger.
Railroad tracks aren't repaired or paid for by the government. The railroads and their workers do it themselves.
What seems to be lost in the discussions about Keystone, is that oil
whatever the source is the raw material.
Thorough refining, we manufacturer finished fuel products, and many other things.
We need some manufacturing basis to drive the economy, Services alone will not do it.
Kind of like electricity, dams, and water supplies, all public boondoggles we should all do without
Right, because a single person or family is the same as environmental damage to an entire region's water source. /sarcasm
I wonder, is this the typical limited view that allows people to just dismiss environmental harm outright?
Railroad tracks aren't repaired or paid for by the government. The railroads and their workers do it themselves.
If we mainstream other sources of energy for residences and commercial buildings, like solar, wind, etc, we'd have loads of domestic oil left for manufacturing purposes.
The point is that the refining of oil IS the manufacturing process.If we mainstream other sources of energy for residences and commercial buildings, like solar, wind, etc, we'd have loads of domestic oil left for manufacturing purposes.
The point was **** happens everyday. Getting melodramatic is pointless.
No we wouldn't, what you're talking about is electrical generation. Crude oil is very rarely use for electrical generation in the United States, other than generators that is but those are for emergency use. Oil is mainly used as automotive fuel or fuel for transportation. In some parts of the country it may also be used for heating furnaces. But very little electrical grid power comes from the burning of oil
So is it just Canadian oil you want to boycott or all oil from all countries arriving on our shores by ships that can and do run aground and then transported by road or rail where spills also occur? My guess is you are so anti oil you would stop it all if you could.
We can add solar power to houses in Seattle for $40,000/home for complete (no additional sources needed) residential power. Homes here sell power back to the electrical companies. Here, in cloudy Seattle. We could have paid for every residential building in the US for what we spent in Iraq.
Oil powers generators everywhere. Lots of people have oil furnaces for heating. Not needed for solar.
Do we have oil furnaces for heating here in the Seattle area? It doesn't even really get cold enough that oil was the most efficient method of heating. Out right live every house is either a woodstove, a pellet stove, or natural gas.
Many homes and businesses do have generators, but use of oil for electrical generation is an incredibly small percentage of electricity. I'm not aware of any oil firing electrical plant in Western Washington at least. The bigger share of our power comes from Hydro electric.
Even out in the Midwest Coal is the predominant form of electricity. One can argue the benefits of solar power, but I doubt it will save enough liquid fuel to End our dependence on foreign sources
What is your preferred method to transport oil? Trains derail, ships sink, trucks crash.
Most of which is coming from an naturally occurring environmental nightmare situation--tar sands. I find it ironic that environmentalist want to make it harder for Canada to mitigate an environmental nightmare because it involves oil.
I am for the pipeline, but that is ridiculous. The Canadian Tar Sands is about the largest, and most toxic, industrial operation on earth in terms of the amount of land and water impacted.
It is 1) naturally occurring and 2) toxic as hell. Which part do you think is ridiculous. Once the oil is extracted, they are cleaning up the site to be pristine forest so deer, rabbits, and miscellaneous bi-footed creatures do not get sucked into the toxins. From what I have read, the cost of the restoration is going to be such that in the end it would have been better financially to have just drilled the oil from somewhere else if that was all that they were after.
There is nothing at all natural about this:
I am all for building the Keystone Pipeline as that tar sands oil is going to be extracted either way and a pipeline is by far the lesser of evils when it comes to transporting that oil, but it is absurd to argue that the environmental impacts of extracting it are less than that of leaving it in the ground.
It's only big when you're there. Pan the camera back, it's not that big.
It's over 200 square miles and easily visible from space:
Pictures: Satellite Views of Canada's Oil Sands Over Time
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?