Polls
Login
RSS Feed: Local News
RSS Feed: Sports
RSS Feed: Voice
| Empty promises won’t power progress |
|
|
| Written by Jon Mendelson / Tracy Press / | |
| Friday, 07 March 2008 | |
|
Second Thoughts: A renewable-energy bill passed by the House is encouraging to gas-addicted commuters, but a presidential veto threat sours hope for forward movement. With my primary mode of transportation out of commission, I’ve been forced to roam the streets this week in my trusty Rustbucket. The experience has been a bit of an eye-opener.
I typically fill the gas tank on my normal car less than once a week, even with the occasional weekend excursion. Since I have to gas up the Rustbucket significantly more often, it gave me a chance to find out exactly what was going on at local fueling stations. And now, I too feel the pain. The best deal for a gallon of regular unleaded in Tracy has hovered near $3.35, but I’ve seen it well above $3.50. In some places in the Bay Area, that same gallon has already spiked above $4. (If anyone has an inside scoop on the cheapest gas in town, let me know.)
Less than two months ago, it wasn’t hard to find fuel for less than three bucks. But with oil trading for as much as $106 a barrel, that’s changed. And we haven’t even hit the Summer Driving Season — when a more expensive fuel blend and increased demand traditionally push prices to their calendar-year highs. Those in the know (probably those with Exxon Mobil stock) say the national average for a gallon of gas will top $4 before Labor Day.
This is a particularly poignant problem for Tracy, as more than 60 percent of its residents commute, some legging out one-way trips of more than 1½ hours. Depending on your car, that means filling up as often as once every two or three days.
Considering that and the city’s suburban layout, which makes it impossible for most people to get anywhere without a car, the majority around here is stuck paying high gas prices that will only climb higher.
So we’re stuck with the time-honored remedies of carpooling, packing errands into the same outing and cutting down on day trips. It seems like there isn’t much an individual consumer can do except slip on a Carter-era sweater and turn off the engine while waiting in the drive-through.
But 236 members of the House of Representatives in February tried to do something bigger. They passed — over the dissent of 182 colleagues — a renewable energy bill that would take $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years away from oil and gas companies and redirects that money to alternative energy research. It would also extend and expand tax incentives already helping alt-energy outfits, as well as end the program that gives companies tax credits for buying sport utility vehicles.
It’s no surprise that former wind-farm engineer and Rep. Jerry McNerney had a hand in getting the legislation passed — his district is home to the Altamont Wind Farm and the offices of several renewable-energy companies.
Kudos to the House for taking this first step. It isn’t going to ease the strain on pocketbooks now, but it might in a few years, if it’s part of a dedicated effort to develop new energy resources. It could even boost industry and create and maintain jobs, which is nice, considering the state of the economy.
Hope, however, might be premature. The Bush administration — the same one that brought the nation Vice President Cheney’s secret energy task force — threatened to veto the bill if it reaches the president’s desk unaltered. The White House said that it would raise prices for consumers, and the Office of Management and Budget said senior advisers would recommend a veto because it constitutes an unfair, targeted tax hike.
But it’s tough playing the sympathy card, considering the bill would cost the top five oil companies less than 2 percent of their profits, the biggest in the history of U.S. business.
It’s even tougher to fathom the reasons for President Bush’s opposition, as he himself said in April 2005: “With $55 (per barrel) oil we don’t need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent.”
Earlier this week — after the veto threat, mind you — Bush issued a stirring call for the U.S. to “get off oil.” He boasted that “America is in the lead when it comes to energy independence” and stressed the importance of strengthening renewable energy sources.
If the Senate does its work and sends the bill to the White House, the president will have a chance to live up to his rhetoric and help Tracy’s commuters in the long term. If he doesn’t, we’ll know that the speeches were just a feel-good red herring.
Too bad empty platitudes won’t power my car. • Talk back to Jon at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , or visit his blog for more Second Thoughts.
The Tracy Press encourages a free and open exchange of ideas and information. We reserve the right but do not assume any obligation to delete comments that do not meet our publishing standards. Report abuse to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Trackback(0)
Comments
(74)
Your right Dale, but explain why oil companies need tax payers money? The argument has always been to keep down the price of gas. The problem is we don't ever seem to get the discount. Oil companies still charge whatever the market will allow.
There's certainly no magic alternative source of energy out there but that does not mean we should not look. It’s pretty obvious that if we can’t find a solution to our reliance on oil we as a nation, being the most energy dependant country in the world, are going to be in a lot of trouble. I’m sure a good deal of this countries prosperity was due to being able to utilize cheap energy. Now the rest of the world is competing for that energy and it’s getting expensive. It’s time to start looking for something cheaper. Subsidizing oil is not going to help in that goal.
For Jim lamb...Oil companys make about 19 cents per gallon profit. they pay to buy the oil, ship it, refine it, transport it. yet You think they are the greedy ones...
when the federal Govt. and The State of california charge 60 cents a gallon in Taxes!!! which You pay every time you go to the PUMP. it is the Democrat Thieves in Sacramento who are ripping you off. wise up LAMB.
Yes lets spend Billions to develop "Alternative energy" like
Methonol..which uses CORN...Now the price of Corn has gone up, and corn oil, corn chips, corn flakes....Tortillas yes Democrat McNerney had a hand in getting this watefull bill passed. billions down the drain. another nail in the economy's coffin. Crude OIL is the best Fuel source we have yet Leftists Like mendelson and McNerney vote for Commies Like Nancy Pelosi et al who block any form of Drilling in America. it is the democrats who keep us Slaves to Saudi Oil.
Steve,
You still have not answered the question. Why do the Oil companies need to be subsidized? Clearly in this market they are fully able to make a profit on their own. I’d think a free market guy like yourself would be for the oil companies paying their own way. I’m not arguing for bio-fuel. I have the exact concerns you do. Cheaper gas for more expensive food is not a good deal.
Crude oil was the most cost effective energy source, but now that so many emerging economies are competing for it, it's getting more expensive than alternatives. Drilling for more is fine, but most experts believe that drilling gets us only incrementally so far. Long term solutions will require new ideas and technologies. The oil companies know how to drill. They don’t need out help figuring out how to do that. Basic research into alternatives is what will in the long relieve our dependence on foreign oil.
There's actually a good argument for creating a price floor tax on gasoline that would prevent prices from falling too much. The arguments are simple: (1) keep demand disincentives in place to spur alternative usage (2) thereby, reduce strategic dependence on unfriendly and theocratic Middle Eastern regimes. The additional revenue could then be part of the funding source for alternatives or as tax credits for hybrids/fuelcell/ethanol.
An oil company needs a subsidy no more than does a renewable resource, a recycling program, farming, airlines… “if we can’t find a solution to our reliance on oil we as a nation, being the most energy dependant country in the world, are going to be in a lot of trouble.” We have arrived, the issues are becoming more apparent. Look at current market pricing. If the Fed didn’t require long-term contracts for utility company sources and their needs it would be even more volatile. No offshore drilling No drilling in ANWAR Reasons not to add additional refining capacity a. Possible changes in energy policy b. Length of approval time c. Requirements for approval d. Cost of approval & construction e. Unknown market at startup f. Record profits No coal No nuclear Unless there is a dramatic change in energy technology and its distribution, both in supply lines and capacity, oil will continue as the dominant energy source no matter what people say. We have a tendency to vote using our wallets. That is the market place. Side note- for years, you got “the discount.” For verification, look at fuel costs (not just the monetary) throughout the world over the last 100 years. Compare that with the economics and economies of the regions.
I'd argue that cheap gas relative to other nations had more to do with lower taxation and not so much because the oil companies were doing us a favor. They sell their oil on the open global market. It just happens that we're first in line to buy. Is it your belief that they discount the oil for us in leau of selling it over seas? That seems doubtful.
Price per barrel of oil is X as determined by the world market. Because of the falling dollar, we're paying more now because we import more then we produce. Drilling for more by all acounts won't fill that gap. Unless we find another source of energy, we'll always be dependant on other countries for our prosperity. What do you think would happen if we pissed off OPEC enough to cut off our supply? We'd be up @%$# creek, that’s what. Oil’s not the answer to energy independence. The oil goes to whoever is willing to pay the most for it. By our actions we have decided we'll sit it out for a while while the market continues to operate. My point was that our economy is what it is today because we were market specialists and recognized value. "Unless we find another source of energy, we'll always be dependant on other countries for our prosperity." Unless we "develop" another source... We exclude the obvious sources at our peril. Less production is farther from filling that gap.
"What do you think would happen if we pissed off OPEC enough to cut off our supply? We'd be up @%$# creek, that’s what. "
That is my concern, too. Total dependence on oil empowers other nations, imagine it coming to total stop? Paralysis of America? We do need alternative energy... One with nuclear plant that provides clean energy... but one drawback is the nuclear waste byproducts. Scientists are working on it. The other is Solar... since the world is going solar, foregoing additional building of nuclear plants.... we might as well keep in pace with them? Might open job opportunities for many, too?
as for cars, the auto manufacturer will have to come up with new designs for using other available fuel... Japan is working on solar car.. France and India, and Australia are working on "air" car... time will tell but time is also of essence...
Which country will lead economically?
"What do you think would happen if we pissed off OPEC enough to cut off our supply? We'd be up @%$# creek, that’s what."
We'll stand in headlight waiting on the train tracks until the train hits us. Because with the exception of what happened during '73' and '76' oil embargo's we'd never put contingency plans in place. The continued production and use of oil while looking for alternatives is today's answer.
I applaud you Dale for continuing to plod along with your reasoned discourse and level headedness. It is difficult to put up with many of the personal attacks and innuendos one often gets. I get fed up with it. Especially with those who are arrogant, but you persevere. You are better at this than I.
When your father and your uncle are masters of delivering verbal darts... you can
a. accept it b. grow a thicker skin c. retort with facts and humor or d. ... well that would not be fair
Chuckling...
We will not quit using oil for a long time, in fact, years.... until alternative energy is full in force and demands for oil will lessen or become obsolete....
Scott: Dale is often amusing but I rarely see factual or reasoned discourse. The other day he denied there was a consensus among climate scientists while providing no factual basis for his claims. Today he leaps directly into this fray with a claim of "hot air", for instance, which is neither reasoned nor factual, and would be perceived as reactive if applied to you. He is less stupidly noisy than, say, Reshikas, but he does represent the worst of Movement Conservatism that is continuous in its angry message of partisan polemics.
the green-eyed monster hath arrived and boy is he extra peevish today. Consensus among scientists... isn't that an oxymoron? Still no consensus among climate scientists though the Goreacle did thusly proclaim as much in Inconvenient Truths... & Half Truths... though certainly not “Nothing but the Truth” as stated by the shaman his own self.
Indeed, it is precisely the failure of Movement Conservatism to provide solutions to social and economic problems that makes it so unappealing to the electorate (ever since Reagan). Instead it tends to try to reenvision history and science as purely political gambits (take Jonah Goldberg's polemic that even The American Conservative felt was ridiculous or Ann Coulter's various screeds), and the best that can be provided is trumpeting coal and nuclear and ANWAR and offshore drilling, despite the fact that the political constituencies don't want those things. They want something different.
So is Movement Conservatism going to retool with a message that has political value or just keep yelling in a corner?
and... glad to see you're buds with Scott again.
Hopefully you'll begin treating him a little nicer.
Dale: "consensus" can mean unanmity (agreed there are some climate scientists who disagree) and can also mean "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned". That is about as accurate as can be applied to the situation.
written by Mark Davis , March 08, 2008 "Scott: Dale is often amusing but I rarely see factual or reasoned discourse"... because he torks my nutts so much I stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes and sing la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you... really, really loud... and it really gets my panties in a wad when I have to continually go from one course to a different, to a different during an argument just because I cannot let it go. He's inhuman... why doesn't he read the mountain of inconsequential extraneous data I submit? God darn him. Arrrrgh.
Mark: You truly are in a class all by yourself. Thanks for finally showing your utter contempt for all things conservative and not hiding behind the fascade of independent objectivity. That was what I admired about Al. He lets you know he hates you and doesn't try to hide it with verbage. He is an honest man and people know where he is coming from. The personal allusions to stupidity and your personal insults have made an honest man out of you. Conservatism means freedom of association, to exchange goods and services with whom you please without tyranny of the minority or the majority. It is a belief in the sanctity of all human life and of a devine creator that will make things right in the end. Truth is not about elections or present day opinions nor quantitative studies based upon false presuppositions. Sadly this you will not understand. At least now you have made your contempt honest. You hold subjective opinions based upon your own prism like the rest of us. We just pray that our opinions through the prism are close to reality as in is. We see through a glass darkly. Republicans abandoned conservatism to gourge on pork
Mark: I should concede something to you. I only can respond to the times I have read Dale's comments. If there are other statements that are contrary, I haven;t read them.
The other part of Movement Conservatism that seems so unappealing to the electorate is a weird kind of populism based on anti-intellectualism (Green energy alternatives are a scam!) As the Pew political typology has pointed out, it is the explosive growth of the Liberal type that is the most interesting occurrence over the last two decades. Liberals in the Pew typology are the best educated among all the types and tend to view Movement Conservatives as downright crazy for their monotonous labeling of everything as biased, liberal, pinko, etc. This is not to argue that there are not intellectual heavyweights in Conservatism, just that they tend to be grumbly and sidelined by the noisy anti-intellectuals. WFB was smart enough, though he had a streak of racism in him during the early years that would be considered outright evil today. CATO does good work on the economic side, too, but the level of nuance ends about there.
Thanks Mark. I can't live without my daily insult from you. Bless you my child. You are relevant because? Honestly this is only sport. Do you really think you are changing minds? When it comes to interest in this, we are both preaching to our own chorus line.
Jon, “Too bad empty platitudes won’t power my car.” Dale, "…neither will your hot air" Still sounds like a reasonable observation to me
Dale: He was referring to other people's comments while you were attacking him. If I said "Scott is filled with hot air" or, like a few days back, said "Scott hasn't a clue what he's talking about" it was interpreted as an ad hominem. With Scott defending your great discourse, the least I could do was point out the parallels.
written by Mark Davis , March 08, 2008 Today he leaps directly into this fray with a claim of "hot air", for instance written by Mark Davis , March 08, 2008 Scott: OK, so you think his use of "hot air" is "reasoned and level headed discourse"? So if I attack him for attacking other people... My bad?
Dale: Absolutely, well I have no real issue with it, but you certainly don't live up to Scott's standards :-)
I am not in this world to live up to someone else’s expectations and they are not here to live up to mine (though it would certainly help)... and if we find each other... groovy
However, what are you going to do with the other six and one half billion people on the planet?
"How ya gonna keep'em down on the farm?"
vosburg,
That an easy one. And here's the answer... With the money that Mountain House'rs save by cutting their commutes shorter - they should easily be able to afford those overpriced homes. Don't you think? 
"Oil companies make about 19 cents per gallon profit. They pay to buy the oil, ship it, refine it, transport it. yet You think they are the greedy ones... "
Here's some data: http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasol...index.html Interesting you only mention the Gasoline side of the equation. The profit for the oil company's is on the Crude oil side. It costs a little over $10 to produce a barrel of crude oil. At $27 a barrel, oil companies were doing just fine. At $104 a barrel it's I think fair to say they don't need our help. I’m not looking to punish the oil companies for doing business. What I’m looking to do is end unneeded subsidies. Whether those subsidies get used for something else is an entirely different argument.
While necessity may be the mother of invention, innovation, (the ability to generate new ideas), is the ultimate driver in helping us create more value from the resources available to us.
How does America become more innovative? There are all kinds of notions about how to create ideas and get them to market -whether a new tecnology (e.g. the PC) or a new way of doing things (big-box retailing) dispensationalizing them wisely and widely in society. Ok, everybody here's where you all get the chance to jump/jive unto your keyboards. We could eliminate all taxes on savings and investment - basically creating a consumption tax - which would result in more capital and rewards for entrepreneurs. (spell check!?) Or how about government sponsored innovation prizes? Come up with a radically fuel effecient car. Or make colleges and universities compete for federal grants based on how many science and engineering students, they turn out. Oh and Jon, I believe the Safeway gas station is still the cheapest if you have your Safeway card -a 3cent discount and don't mind the lines.
Amy, There will always be loses and gains in venture capitalism however, (they) should be aware of moving their liquidity around, as investors do. By-products made-up of plastic will never completley go away as will coal, I fear.
"innovation" is not a new concept either and there are many controversies (some say wasteful) as to how it's entered into the status quo. Some say less government intervention others want to ride out the free-trade market. What I'm suggesting, albeit sophomoric, is to move forward, as was the original writers intent (I think), away from his "rustbucket." :-> Ultimately it gets back to legislation and the beguiled rhetoric of "hot air." No offense to any rustbuckets. The article caption- "Empty promises won’t power progress" “Kudos to the House for taking this first step. It isn’t going to ease the strain on pocketbooks now, but it might in a few years” The humor in this is the word “might” while we are here ‘today.’ people consistently complain about oil profits the price goes up tax it, windfall tax it… the price continues up everyone pays it you cannot avoid paying though it can be minimized, people (some, a lot, a majority?) want renewables the House decided to support nenewable sources through subsidies, though why subsidize any energy? biofuels- it takes oil to grow, market and consume food or process biofuels. with biofuels competing for acreage with food crops… will the rising cost of food begin to fall? biofuels contain about 15% less energy/gallon than oil and now appear to contribute to the air pollution we’re reducing think biofuels will be marketed without subsidies and in 5 years? please raise your hand solar- made w/ petroleum and used during production, shipping and installation can a solar panel be recycled? No definitive answer backup plan- stand alone or part of the grid, backup generator installed costs? everyone that believes solar panels are produced without an environmental cost please raise your hand wind- if the wind is less than a constant, what is the backup plan geothermal- an unknown Diesel today is @ $4/gallon gas is projected to go there all the above have no less costs than the current energy sources at what point do Democrat leaders formulate an energy policy with today's applications? Without backup, what happens when the power goes out?
Everybody talks about alternate energy as negative fruition.
The abject "might" started thirty years ago when crude oil was still inexpensive, to refine, redistribute and resale. The argument is major oil developers maintain the supply and demand song and dance. Yet continue to post world shattering ptofits. Basically almost every by-product (PVC for solar or fuselage materials/components for wind turbine generators) is a petroleum base by product -it will never go away and "has an environmental cost"? Does that exceed cost and demands for an alternate energy source to at least begin to cap "greenhouse emissions" and take a serious look at subsidies? Will it replace our mode of transportation or source of electrical grids -perhaps not. But it will at least offer alternatives. Will it offset the demands to be depedent on foreign oil? Will it lead us into another war in another far away country (Sudan perhaps) under the guise of spreading democratic elections and free trade -raise your hands!
What about "back-up?" There's always been problems with hydro-electric power and nuclear, solar, wind, thermal, etc., nothing has ever been 100% percent constant (reliable) all the time.
This is part of the negative grandizing which moving into alternates suggest's a waste of time. Need we forget human error? Last week a utility service tech accidently shut down about two-thirds of Florida? Somehow the human spirit perservered without call it, "the end of days." One may want to take just a moment to put at least minimal thought into the posted discussion. Then one may discern that out of all the posts no one has ventured close to... "the end of days." Only one writer has proposed that alternate energy will be relegated to the heap of "negative fruition." If one has read that in one's post could one cut and paste it so that one may review the negative reference? With regard to one's discussion of capping "greenhouse gases" ... not everyone agrees to strangling one's economy to stroke someone's ego and one will wait for more data before buying one's latest theory... so full of holes that one laughs... and could one maybe discuss observed warming throughout the solar system? ...course someone's irritation level rises at that causing someone to bleat even louder. One's country will always be a the mercy of someone else's for something. One has to buy one's, at best, dubious, claim of war for oil unless one truly did not care about the previous owner killing off the locals and the foreigners. Now which one's team professes to care so much for people without really helping anyone. Something for one to ponder. One may need some focus because operator error in Florida has little to do with the energy sources. One hopes that helps one
I'm not entirely sure one's economy isn't strangeled already?
Cutting and pasting are for those who have no valid ideological theme except for filing an account recievable form. The theory that our solar system is over heating is cyclic just as those who proclaim, the same, for global warming. More data on that later, "ha-ha." If one's country is at the mercy of someone elses' than it's usually because someone else is getting there first. Without back-up, what happens when one's power goes out? One hopes that explains one. “ no valid ideological theme” typical leftist... make an accusation without wishing to support it. "Without back-up, what happens when one's power goes out? One hopes that explains one." ? when the wind died and demand overwhelmed the grid inTexas because there was not enough previously constructed backup capacity using fossile-fuel i.e. ‘backup’ when the sun is too low in the morning, again in the evening and all during the night, to generate solar power and demand overwhelmes the grid because there was not enough previously constructed backup capacity using fossile-fuel i.e. ‘backup’ One hopes one can now grasp the implications. In case not… demand capacity needs to be built-up to parallel renewables to minimize brown-outs and black-outs which increase costs “The theory that our solar system is over heating is cyclic just as those who proclaim, the same, for global warming.” You’re using my point… because… you did not understand it, or had no place else to go with it? “They” are proclaiming global warming is caused by man I think the yellow ball in the sky causes it
So then for you a finite resource like fossil fuel will always be there?
Yhea, yeah you must think nobody gets it? You have nothing but suppositions -exccept to proclaim other persons quotes or an a-typical methodology using frame and reference to the sun? And "brown-outs and blackouts historically have been happening up and down the Easren Seaboard since the 1960's -despite fossil fuel backup? So what about Texas? Go ahead and use up some more deleted space. "Irritation levels rises causing someone to bleat even louder?" Aye, Dale? . The one who indulges himself in the art of cutting and pasting or reverts to name calling? Like the guy who blames global warming on the Weather Channel. Leftist? Is that all you got? Kurt. with apologies... my worst easily exceeds your best your left views are indicative of the caliber of your arguments, poorly formed and articulated. I think a lot of people "get it" but are hoping for a magic bullet. Having said nothing about fossil fuels always being there, it is my observation... no fuel but those currently available in quantity, will for the immediate future, be adequate for the generation of power. Petroleum, coal and nuclear. Renewables need to become more efficient to become a major force in the market The outages on the eastern seaboard have been caused by equipment malfunctions and operator errors... the fuel isn't the problem look for the same issues to crop up with renewable technology "Like the guy who blames global warming on the Weather Channel." No clue... Have not seen the need to discount for spelling because you have relatively polite.
There seem to be--and I say "seem" because of the relative limitations of much of the obfuscatory English usage above--a few claims that have grown up here:
(1) Dale indicates that he has little trust in global warming due to human action. (2) Dale claims that the renewables like wind and solar have no storage strategy associated with them and other unknowables. (3) Dale claims that coal, nuclear and more petroleum discovery are better short-term solutions than renewables. (4) Dale might claim that subsidizing the oil companies with tax breaks was wrong to begin with. (5) And, that using that subsidization offset for R&D on renewables is equally bad. Given that, and with a perhaps vain attempt at rescuing this discourse from a paralysis of vernacular, we have to ask whether we should end the tax breaks to O&G companies and not use those revenues for renewable R&D? There is a certain perversity in using some of their profits to fund technologies that might inhibit their business models in the future (though, in fairness, most are involved in alternative energy R&D, too). If, instead, we just consider exorbitant fuel prices a drain on the economy and a strategic threat due to economic gain by OPEC nations and Russia (and our sliding dollar due to a range of factors including war debt, deficits expansion and so forth), then we should improve energy independence using a basket of approaches to anticipate and reduce future energy shocks, strategic threats, and improve our economy. If not through O&G tax breaks, then perhaps through a floor tax or simply through continued funding of DOE. I tend to think that it is a reasonable trade-off to look at a basket of green and not-so-green energy technologies (and to use prudent federal backing of basic R&D), while relying on the political constituencies to make decisions about how much nuclear, green-tech, drilling, etc. they want in their backyards.
Dale, the problem is largely that we don't have a back up to oil. By all account's supply is static while demand is going up. We can't grow our way out of our financial crisis if there's not cheap energy available to sustain that growth. Given India and China's new thirst for oil, drilling for more might help a bit, but certainly not enough to deal with the shortage we're facing.
We need to invest in R & D for alternatives to avoid what's sure to be a problem in the near future. Personally I think nuclear is our only option in the short run. Even so, the price of those materials are going though the roof because other countries have adopted the technology first. While you slam solar, it happens to generate the most power when it's needed most. Certainly a R & D push for more eficient sollar is a good thing. written by Jim Lamb , March 10, 2008 "Dale, the problem is largely that we don't have a back up to oil." is what I'm saying. By not using available resources in the short term, it becomes more difficult participate in the world market over the long term while new energy types are developed. The U.S. leads the world in new nuclear power equipment advancements, selling it to other countries though it's not used here. At no point do I "slam" solar or other renewables as energy sources. Though they are not ready for primetime, they will become part of the equation. To incorporate new inefficient technologies over current proven technologies in hope of finding breakthroughs will bring us more of what we are currently experiencing. Just because Captain Picard said, "Make it so." didn't necessarily make it so.
True, but we won't find solutions unless we look.
Crude Oil hit $107 a barrel today. At these prices, lots of technologies are looking attractive by comparison. No matter how much drilling we do, supply will not catch up with demand. People seem wiling to bet that prices will go down as demand goes up given the same supply. I'm not. maybe we could work on increasing the supply by additional production thereby having some impact on the market?
Again, We've come full circle and fallen back into the mantra of the oil consortium:
Dale's last blog sounds more like rhetoric out of the Bush administration, even though OPEC and the Saudi's have already said, "no" (to more oil production). So, Mr. Cose, where does one intend on finding such "additional production," ("the magic bullet syndrome?") easing said demand "and having some impact on the market?" Kind of vague without certain specifics, don't you agree, sir? Kurt. Take your time, I guess we'll have until Wed's. until the Website changes -what else is there to do... why continue to post repeatedly about the things previously posted? some people thrive on repetition. additional production- Drill offshore Drill in ANWAR Nuclear
Where are Dale's answers to "additional production?"
Still illegal. Not gonna happen. Marginal and lethargic at best. Still controversial -unknown. These are not innovative "new" ideas. Your notions of "accusations without wishing to support it," apparently spread beyond what was thought to be simply consistant within the psychosis of gifted Leftists'? Kurt.
For those that want to help diversify the energy supply and lower polluition from fossil fuel generation solar panels at the home or business are ideal. If your worried about backup power install batteries with your system. Solar power is best when the grid needs the power the most because its maximun output occurs when the air conditioners are pumping creating peak demand. Countries like Germany are far ahead of us in generating solar power. Their government reccognizes its utility and promotes it by paying for electricity prodution at a premium rate. It is estimated that the pollution to build the panels takes about 1.7 years for the panel to produce enough electricity to eliminate its polluiton from constrution. It also eliminates taxes to the government becuase you avoid the utility taxes associated with electricity bills. You can sit around and blog negatively or you can be part of the solution.
CHINA: Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China by Ariana Eunjung Cha, Washington Post March 9th, 2008 “With the prices of oil and coal soaring, policymakers around the world are looking at massive solar farms to heat water and generate electricity. For the past four years, however, the world has been suffering from a shortage of polysilicon -- the key component of sunlight-capturing wafers -- driving up prices of solar energy technology and creating a barrier to its adoption. With the price of polysilicon soaring from $20 per kilogram to $300 per kilogram in the past five years, Chinese companies are eager to fill the gap.” the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards. "The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University. Headline: More data supporting German solar slowdown December 11, 2006 - Exclusive By Dallas Kachan, cleantech.com Canadian Solar is taking steps to react to weakening German solar demand, citing "psychological issues". Newly-public solar module maker Canadian Solar Inc. (CSI) (NASDAQ: CSIQ) is the latest company to point to a softening in German solar growth. Leaving out the lead-acid or alkaline battery costs, who woulda thunk solar, like other energy sources has market and evironmental issues acting upon it? Professor Bingyan, is like totally unaware that in like in 1.7 years a panel like produces enough electricity to totally eliminate pollution from its like construction. watt, who wrote your stuff? by estimation- how do you eliminate pollution from something 1.7 years after its been constructed?
I hadn't planned on commenting, but seeing Dale's latest reply it made me realize the vast differences in approaches here. There are many of us that would like to see some new, innovative thinking. We'd like to end our dependence on oil, not just foreign oil. I'm sure you can find negative articles all day long that poke holes in alternative energy means. I do find it ironic being an advocate of "clean" nuclear technology that you'd even have the audacity to discredit another theory due to its waste. Ha!
Your thinking is best suited for the 19th and 20th centuries. I just don't understand why you guys continue to feel the need to defend the oil industry to the detriment of R&D. What is wrong with finding new and exciting technologies that will better our lives? I have to believe that at the end of the day, it's either blind loyalty or fear of change that prevents you from expanding your mind. The age of oil will one day come to an end. Whether it's 20 years from now or 150 years from now. However, if we continue to pretend that oil is an infinite resource we will continue to behave like it is. It will simply be too late to implement a solution once we realize we've run out of oil. I don't want to live in that world nor do I want it for my children. Bold change takes bold leadership and bold initiatives. I'm waiting to see what you guys have to offer. Mike, I totally agree with alternate energy sources. My point is that we have to get from here to there using reality A different discussion may help me explain my point. Think of all the negatives we know about the current sources. Myriad. but coal was a more efficient heat source than the wood it replaced. The gasoline-powered engine was hailed as a great advancement to the horse maintenance required at the time (especially by cities buried in horse poop.) Oil allowed for the industrial revolution to ramp up production to unimagined levels. Conflict showed another side. Nuclear was more efficient when coal or oil was not available. The newer technologies are not burdened with the same knowledge or perceptions and their positives and negatives remain to be identified. Also the technologies are so new they have no operating history. Are the costs (monetary, environmental, social…) equal, less or more? During the 70’s I had friends working and watched the Altamont wind farms begin. Operation issues closed most. In the 80’s we leased space to a wind generating company by the name of Fayette. Operation issues closed it. The tax breaks of the 80’s expired and the area collapsed. In the 90’s bird strikes become an issue. for the record I plan on incorporating solar into my next home. If I didn’t think there was a good reason for it why do it?
If the goal is to move forward and look at the future, it's certainly not "Drill, Drill and then Nukes." ("To get from here to there using reality?") How is it we havn't been able to refine coal enough to make it breathable? And by now the U.S. has produced enough batteries to contaminate two thirds of the planet. No worries though your friend (Prof. Bingyan?) may be calling off the Olympics because Bejing has so much air pollution. What a disapointment that you've trapped yourself in your thinking since liberal media like the Washington Post hadn't notified Mr. Cose alas, crude oil is now just under $108.oo per barrel.
Retooling an already stagnant labor force, given the individual geo-signatures of fifty states, presents a nuance for change. Disposal represents it's challenges -that never stopped us in the past!
Dale, why not pass a bill given certain sq. ft. that developers install solar? And for those with acreage in rural or unincorporated areas be given a certain level of wind (KW?) technology.
Offsetting (as you've pointed out) alternatives couldn't hurt? Good luck with your new home. A person with your particular (construction) skills should be a leader in the community. Then again, don't always take me too seriously...
Dale: Given (4) in my synopsis above, you apparently disagree with the Bush veto but feel that the legislature should rescind the tax credits but not fund alternative energy with those credits. I suggest you write your congressman.
repeating this discussion with Nancy Pelosi whispering sweet-nothings in Mr. McNerny’s ear represents an exercise in futility Pragmatically, my congressman’s diminished hearing/comprehension capacity in regard to current large-scale energy production issues leaves little doubt as to his ability to understand market-forces. short version: waste of time
written by Dale Cose , March 10, 2008
CHINA: Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China by Ariana Eunjung Cha, Washington Post March 9th, 2008 “With the prices of oil and coal soaring, policymakers around the world are looking at massive solar farms to heat water and generate electricity. For the past four years, however, the world has been suffering from a shortage of polysilicon -- the key component of sunlight-capturing wafers -- driving up prices of solar energy technology and creating a barrier to its adoption. With the price of polysilicon soaring from $20 per kilogram to $300 per kilogram in the past five years, Chinese companies are eager to fill the gap.” the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards. "The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University. Headline: More data supporting German solar slowdown December 11, 2006 - Exclusive By Dallas Kachan, cleantech.com Canadian Solar is taking steps to react to weakening German solar demand, citing "psychological issues". Newly-public solar module maker Canadian Solar Inc. (CSI) (NASDAQ: CSIQ) is the latest company to point to a softening in German solar growth. Leaving out the lead-acid or alkaline battery costs, who woulda thunk solar, like other energy sources has market and evironmental issues acting upon it? written by Dale Cose , March 10, 2008 for the record I plan on incorporating solar into my next home. Village idiot?????????? |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
“Too bad empty platitudes won’t power my car.”
…neither will your hot air
New power plants cost too much… so
When the wind doesn’t blow
When the biofuel/food costs still grow
When the sun hangs too low
Will we have an adequate backup energy flow?
Apparently, few care to know
Never ask underlying questions… it screws up a good story
Always write from an emotional position… it makes better copy
Always include liberaly biased "facts"… it helps people work together
Never think… ah, why point that out to you