• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Keystone pipeline

They also burn hot, as all fossil fuels do. Hot and dirty.

Meanwhile, Nuclear Energy burns hot but clean.

-John
 
We use oil. We transport oil. Transports fail and cause spills.
Another number for that 16k gallons is 400 barrels.

Work on our use factor... but don't pretend we don't need or won't use it.
 
We can mellow out, in the discussion of energy, as we realize we have nuclear power.

It can provide all the power of fossil fuels, and more.

-John
 
Zorkorist said:
We can mellow out, in the discussion of energy, as we realize we have nuclear power.

It can provide all the power of fossil fuels, and more.

-John
Click to expand...

Someday it might actually become safe to use even, barring accidents, storing the waste, and natural events like earthquakes etc that will make the
things glow for hundreds of years later when they fail.
 
Better yet, if we can ever harness fusion, there is no radioactivity and hence no radioactive waste. Probably at least 25 years off though, if not more.
 
Funny how this desire to modernize and make things safer never seems to apply to the corporation owned train cars that are unsafe to being with.

I am resting easier knowing that a sure-as-shit spill of this nasty, very corrosive version of crude and the subsequent bill for it won't be handed to American taxpayers, the Canadian companies who own it being granted an exemption for cleanup funds.

Maybe if these companies and their cronies weren't bent on socializing all the risk and privatizing/exporting the profits projects like this would have a easier path? Or does this rancor for "free shit" still only apply for people in need and not multi-billion dollar corporations who often pay nothing in taxes?

Why are the tracks and bridges so shitty in so many states, particularly "business over all else" republican states? Anyone want to take a guess?

The corporations who insist on using unsafe containers and lobby to have the states keep their mits of off the railways are the same ones pissing and moaning about not being able to saddle the public with more risk exporting fuel for the benefit of others.

People want to modernize part of the infrastructure, just not the part that has more uses than just transporting oil. Boo fucking hoo, cry me a fucking river.
 
Last edited:
kage69 said:
Funny how this desire to modernize and make things safer never seems to apply to the corporation owned train cars that are unsafe to being with.

I am resting easier knowing that a sure-as-shit spill of this nasty, very corrosive version of crude and the subsequent bill for it won't be handed to American taxpayers, the Canadian companies who own it being granted an exemption for cleanup funds.

Maybe if these companies and their cronies weren't bent on socializing all the risk and privatizing/exporting the profits projects like this would have a easier path? Or does this rancor for "free shit" still only apply for people in need and not multi-billion dollar corporations who often pay nothing in taxes?

Why are the tracks and bridges so shitty in so many states, particularly "business over all else" republican states? Anyone want to take a guess?

The same corporations who insist on using unsafe containers and lobby to have the states keep their mits of off the railways are the same ones pissing and moaning about not being able to saddle the public with more risk exporting fuel for the benefit of others.

Cry me a fucking river asshats.
Click to expand...
States can't really regulate railroads because of interstate commerce. But the Transportation Administration has mandated the introduction of safer rail cars for hazardous materials and phasing out of older, less safe ones.
 
Brainonska511 said:
States can't really regulate railroads because of interstate commerce. But the Transportation Administration has mandated the introduction of safer rail cars for hazardous materials and phasing out of older, less safe ones.
Click to expand...

No, they just dutifully obey the company lobbyists and find ways to appease their donors, the ones who own the tracks or use them the most. This kind of situation wouldn't happen if we had a single rail authority, but that makes too much sense and threatens corporate egos so the republicans blocked the nationalizing of the rail system.



Don't like what an inspector said about about track safety? Make a call and have the guy fired. Do business in a state with shitty bridges but don't want to pay for renovations? Just tell your cronies not to let the state have any bridge inspectors at all, problem solved!

Btw, the safety concerns of the DOT-111 rail container have been discussed for years, and addressing them has been fought tooth and nail by their owners. Just too darn expensive! A project like this pipeline though, oh no problem! Hope you guys don't mind a little eminent domain action for foreign portfolios though.

I think it's fucking pathetic people are still defending this shit.
 
Last edited:
We, America, celebrated the achievement of a transcontinental railroad.

Today, we can't even build a pipeline.

-John
 
Can you imagine if bitches like you were,

No! Not in my back yard!
I'll sue you!
Oh, I am fainting because your railroad is making me sick!
etc.

-John
 
Zorkorist said:
We, America, celebrated the achievement of a transcontinental railroad.

Today, we can't even build a pipeline.

-John
Click to expand...

Sure we can, we're just not desperate or stupid enough to build this pipeline.


Given the eye-opening stupidity of most of your posts, I'm not surprised at all there are issues here you either fail to comprehend or choose simply to ignore. It's what you do Zork, and the forums search function backs this up in spades.
 
Interesting Zork appears to be all for the freedom for someone to take your property to do with as they please in the name of "progress".
 
It's the Government that is stopping the pipeline. Obama, and friends.

In the absence of Government, the pipeline would be easily built.

-John
 
Zorkorist said:
They also burn hot, as all fossil fuels do. Hot and dirty.

Meanwhile, Nuclear Energy burns hot but clean.

-John
Click to expand...

Except when it doesn't. The issue with nuclear energy is that you don't get to make a mistake, not one. It's not a forgiving form of energy.
 
Zorkorist said:
It's the Government that is stopping the pipeline. Obama, and friends.

In the absence of Government, the pipeline would be easily built.

-John
Click to expand...

No, there are land owners opposed to the pipeline who don't want it on their property. They aren't part of the government. But you appear to have just advocated that what they desire shouldn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top