Reference please.

Of course that will depend on which renewable. Hydro has always been cheap, but doesn’t have much room to expand in the already industrialized parts of the world. I’m extremely unimpressed with wind & solar, aside from small niche applications.

Is there anything particularly objectionable about this pipeline? Or is this typical NIMBY stuff just amped up because of the recent antipathy towards corporations (which is of course totally legitimate)?

I can understand having a problem with this pipeline as a symbol of the further expansion of the oil industry in a time when we really need to be cutting back our oil consumption. But I think a better response to that would be to send a signal to Washington to stop subsidizing an already wildly profitable industry.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a bias since I work for a competing pipeline operator.

Renewables are already cheaper than nuclear fission and still falling.

My choice would be to shift road & air traffic to electric rail where that is feasible & power those electric trains with nuclear fission. However, that can only cut rather than eliminate oil use, & how many of the people opposed to the pipeline would accept my proposal as part of the solution?