Biden’s ‘Buy American’ Clean Energy Conundrum

[togor]

When fuel prices rebound it will be good news, meaning that the economy is moving again. Drillers will return to the field.

Keystone XL does not benefit Wyoming.

If Wyoming is concerned about having a sustainable economy, then they should move out of extraction of non-renewable resources.

[togor]

Ray, was Biden short on money at the end of the campaign?

No he was not.

It's silly to think that he got back into politics to help one guy with a trucking company. I think his view of the horizon is much greater than that.

And plenty in that you view might not like! But at least argue at the right level. One trucking firm, who gives a sh*t. Now the previous guy, if a company giving him kickbacks, totally believable.

[rayg]

[QUOTE=togor;610066]Ray, was Biden short on money at the end of the campaign?

Ray says.. No but maybe when he needed it in the beginning...

Togor.. It's silly to think that he got back into politics to help one guy with a trucking company.

Ray says.. Oh come on silly question!

[togor]

I agree, it's silly to imagine one trucking company becoming the focal point for US energy policy.

[lyman]

depends on who owns it, and rail as well

[rayg]

I agree, it's silly to imagine one trucking company becoming the focal point for US energy policy.

Just the focal for Biden to repay a donor!..

[98src]

The issue as it has been framed is 1,000 times bigger than any trucking company. The petroleum industry wants a high demand for every BTU they produce. That's a rational position for them to take. But equally rational is the position that petroleum doesn't have another century in it as a fuel (for many reasons), and the time to start migrating away from it is now, before the crunch hits. How much US taxpayer money is expended on account of the Persian gulf, a region of strategic relevance for one reason only?

How is shutting down the pipe line "migrating". I can see doing it gradually, but causing the loss of thousands of jobs during a recession without a real good reason doesn't make sense

[togor]

How is shutting down the pipe line "migrating". I can see doing it gradually, but causing the loss of thousands of jobs during a recession without a real good reason doesn't make sense

Is construction in a recession? Does not seem to be the case around here.

The case against Keystone XL is as follows. One may not agree with the reasoning but there is reasoning behind it.

Three things about Alberta tar:

1. There is a lot of it.

2. Its extraction and use is VERY carbon intensive.

3. It is geographically far away from large refining complexes that can handle it.

Right now the petroleum industry does not want to accept the idea that CO2 emissions carry huge societal costs that ought to be born by the industries that produce them. The cement industry at least gets this much.

A pipeline to reduce transportation costs of a large, carbon-intensive fuel source runs counter to the goal of controlling CO2 emissions. The Canucks aren't dumb, they understand this, but it's hard for them to get used to the idea that all of that tar is better off left as-is. Tough pill to swallow.

So if it goes by rail, higher costs, and also no long term commitment like a pipeline. Less will get tapped. Transportation is moving to electric machines, away from internal combustion. So, batteries, fuel cells.

The jobs argument--renewables construction jobs are also construction jobs.

[rayg]

All three things you cited happens whether you truck or pipe! I would imagine that the costs to pipe it in costs much less then to truck or train it into the states and with less carbon vehicle exhaust emissions ....