Keystone pipeline impact study expected Friday
The Keystone XL pipeline would be expected to carry 830,000 gallons a day, but it has met with protest, largely over environmental concerns.
January 31st, 2014
07:45 AM ET
9 months ago

Keystone pipeline impact study expected Friday

(CNN) – The results of an environmental impact study into the Keystone XL pipeline project will be announced Friday afternoon, two senior administration officials and another source familiar with the timing told CNN.

The sources were not authorized to speak on the record.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Energy • Environmental policy
soundoff (14 Responses)
  1. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA -aka- Where's Our $24 Billion?

    I'm not too fond of the private sector meddling with our environment(West Virginia).

    January 31, 2014 08:17 am at 8:17 am |
  2. Name jk. Sfl. GOP CRUZ lee&rubio 24billion dallar LOSS of your tax money conservatives,the garbage of America.

    Who cares if they approve the keystone pipeline, oh ya, the GOP payed off stooges for the greedy oil companies, nobody else!!!

    January 31, 2014 08:40 am at 8:40 am |
  3. Fair is Fair

    If the left is so concerned with "environmental issues", a few next generation nuclear power plants would certainly qualify as carbon-neutral. I'm no fan of the French, but they generate 70% of their electricity this way without incident.

    January 31, 2014 08:55 am at 8:55 am |
  4. Rudy NYC

    I think the economic impact is just as significant as the environmental impact. Lengthy man-made constructs such as this become insurmountable obstacles to wildlife. The Alaska pipeline cut off wild herds from their grazing patterns. I remember hearing about how a Florida highway had cut off frogs from the water, and the built a tunnel underneath it to accomodate the frogs. Or was it sea turtles?

    January 31, 2014 09:01 am at 9:01 am |
  5. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair

    If the left is so concerned with "environmental issues", a few next generation nuclear power plants would certainly qualify as carbon-neutral. I'm no fan of the French, but they generate 70% of their electricity this way without incident.
    ---------------------------
    I think you might be surprised by how many progressives would support safe nuclear plants. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry has lobbied the support of conservatives to bring the nuclear industry to a screeching halt following Three Mile Island. The technology of the safety systems are orders of magnitude better today than they were back then. Not only that, but the science of nuclear power production has improved, thanks in large part to your French, and the Japanese.

    January 31, 2014 09:06 am at 9:06 am |
  6. Al-NY,NY

    Fair is Fair

    If the left is so concerned with "environmental issues", a few next generation nuclear power plants would certainly qualify as carbon-neutral. I'm no fan of the French, but they generate 70% of their electricity this way without incident.
    ------–

    the problem with building nuclear plants is the NIMBY factor....BTW, how are those "Freedom Fries?"

    January 31, 2014 09:08 am at 9:08 am |
  7. Fair is Fair

    Al-NY,NY

    Fair is Fair

    If the left is so concerned with "environmental issues", a few next generation nuclear power plants would certainly qualify as carbon-neutral. I'm no fan of the French, but they generate 70% of their electricity this way without incident.
    --–

    the problem with building nuclear plants is the NIMBY factor....BTW, how are those "Freedom Fries?"
    ----------
    There's PLENTY of federal lands that could be leased.

    January 31, 2014 09:13 am at 9:13 am |
  8. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    There's PLENTY of federal lands that could be leased.
    -----------------------------
    Where? In the middle of national park somewhere. Most of the land you have in mind is probably already in the hands of fossil fuel industry who are doing nothing with it but sitting on it. Besides, the most efficient power plants are not located remotely from their point of delivery because of power loss during transmission.

    January 31, 2014 09:19 am at 9:19 am |
  9. yolanda

    Unfortunately, we still haven't figured out how to dispose of the nuclear waste. Look at the push back on the Yucca Mountain waste facility. There doesn't seem to be a tidy solution.....yet.

    January 31, 2014 09:20 am at 9:20 am |
  10. The Real Tom Paine

    You have to build a plant that has easy access to the grid, and you also need to locate plants in areas where the potential for seismic activity is minimal. The cost of building new plants, as well as the need to regulate them safely, is part of the problem as well. Nukes are a regulatory nightmare, and the cost of mothballing the plants after they become too hot is a big reason why we have not built any new nukes since the early 80s.The truth is, there is no easy solution to generating power. All the methods have pros and cons, and making ourselves dependent upon one source is not a good idea.

    January 31, 2014 09:32 am at 9:32 am |
  11. Fair is Fair

    Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair

    If the left is so concerned with "environmental issues", a few next generation nuclear power plants would certainly qualify as carbon-neutral. I'm no fan of the French, but they generate 70% of their electricity this way without incident.
    ---------
    I think you might be surprised by how many progressives would support safe nuclear plants. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry has lobbied the support of conservatives to bring the nuclear industry to a screeching halt following Three Mile Island. The technology of the safety systems are orders of magnitude better today than they were back then. Not only that, but the science of nuclear power production has improved, thanks in large part to your French, and the Japanese.
    --------
    That's a curious statement – the fossil fuel industry lobbying conservatives to halt nuclear power. Most of what I've seen indicates progressive green organizations and radical environmentalists lobbying the left. But I couldn't agree with you more on the rest of your comment.

    January 31, 2014 09:37 am at 9:37 am |
  12. Fair is Fair

    The Real Tom Paine

    You have to build a plant that has easy access to the grid, and you also need to locate plants in areas where the potential for seismic activity is minimal. The cost of building new plants, as well as the need to regulate them safely, is part of the problem as well. Nukes are a regulatory nightmare, and the cost of mothballing the plants after they become too hot is a big reason why we have not built any new nukes since the early 80s.The truth is, there is no easy solution to generating power. All the methods have pros and cons, and making ourselves dependent upon one source is not a good idea.
    --------
    Funny, isn't it? 45 years ago we put men on the moon, and we haven't come up with a better way to boil water.

    January 31, 2014 09:50 am at 9:50 am |
  13. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    That's a curious statement – the fossil fuel industry lobbying conservatives to halt nuclear power. Most of what I've seen indicates progressive green organizations and radical environmentalists lobbying the left. But I couldn't agree with you more on the rest of your comment.
    -----------------------
    What is so curious about it? It's my understanding that most of our fossil fuel consumption goes into our power plants The fuels could be oil, gas, or coal. More nuclear plants would mean less fossil fuel being purchased by the largest consumer of them, the power industry.

    January 31, 2014 09:53 am at 9:53 am |
  14. Rudy NYC

    "Funny, isn't it? 45 years ago we put men on the moon, and we haven't come up with a better way to boil water."
    --------------------------------------
    Yet, we can roast a chicken in half an hour, instead of the 2-3 hours that it took back then. ;)

    January 31, 2014 09:56 am at 9:56 am |