Political & Elections

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Political & Elections -> Political & Elections - 2014 -> New Oil vs Conservation and alternatives
Post Info TOPIC: New Oil vs Conservation and alternatives
longprime


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Mar 19, 2011
New Oil vs Conservation and alternatives
Permalink  
 

BigG wrote:
Rather than requiring and dictating how society should function, wouldn't it work better and be better recieved to offer financial incentives via tax breaks and credits to use natural gas?

I think we (Fed and State (OR) did or does offer cash and tax incentives.
Problems: Conservatives were opposed to the Fed tax program because it increased deficit. However, they were for new exploration. Now US has a surplus of NG that is so low that companies that were in NG are moving to oil. Propane usage is also in a funk although it uses a by-product of oil and NG production. OR had a program to encourage renewables, conservation, and energy-star appliances, however, a few companies took advantage of the program to build wind farms that resulted in enormous profits while at the same time reduced the funds for residential efficiencies and increased state deficits.

Nutshell:
Energy lobby padded the law in their favor, detriment to state residents, rate payers, and tax payers.
Wind Farm (largest in US, built by Oregon Taxpayer) but 100% of energy is committed to CA.
Some legislators got smoozed.
Those who  needed weatherization and high efficiency appliances are locked out and will continue to burn excess energy of the wrong type and at higher costs.

Get us out of incentives and really let capitalism work.evileye



-- Edited by longprime on Saturday 19th of March 2011 11:22:38 PM

__________________
catahoula


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 963
Date: Mar 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

It can't be that hard. Just move the wind/ethanol/solar incentives and threats over to a new trough. The smart money will be there soon enough.

Ditto on the CNG, though. Besides what looks to be an ample supply, it avoids most of the problems with electrics, I think.

__________________
Tom1944


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 148
Date: Mar 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

I would do both incentives for the public plus requirements for the manufacturers.

__________________
BigG


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 825
Date: Mar 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

Rather than requiring and dictating how society should function, wouldn't it work better and be better recieved to offer financial incentives via tax breaks and credits to use natural gas?

__________________
Razorsharp


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 543
Date: Mar 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

ditto what Tom says.

__________________
Tom1944


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 148
Date: Mar 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

I would like to see some requirement to move a higher percentage of vehicles to compressed natural gas.

__________________
BigG


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 825
Date: Mar 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

soccerguy makes a valid point:

http://gas2.org/2009/06/03/one-container-ship-pollutes-as-much-as-50-million-cars/

Nuclear reactors work very well on ships.

__________________
Razorsharp


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 543
Date: Mar 19, 2011
Permalink  
 

the Chinese government will continue to build nuclear power plants. They will continue to have lower energy costs than the rest of the world and continue to expand their economy because of cheap energy. The correct lesson to learn from Japan is not that nukes are bad but rather that nukes resting on seismic fault lines are bad. America should be building nuclear power plants everywhere except where the risk of natural disaster is great. The vast majority of America has little risk of serious natural disasters such as earthquakes.

__________________
soccerguy315


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 572
Date: Mar 18, 2011
Permalink  
 

what car you drive doesn't make the smallest bit of difference to the environment...

A single large container ship puts out as much pollution as 50 million cars. Just 15 of these ships create as much pollution as all of the cars in the world combined.

__________________
Razorsharp


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 543
Date: Mar 18, 2011
Permalink  
 

the new Ford Focus will get approximately 40 miles per gallon. I just hope the car is nice enough for an average sized American. Saying average size American is a nice way of saying big fat person because it looks like Americans are getting bigger and bigger every day. If that car is a hit it will be good for America and for conservation.

__________________
catahoula


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 963
Date: Mar 14, 2011
Permalink  
 

I'm not vouching for any of this but the site does say MIT and it seems a primer on the reactor design:

http://mitnse.com/

(at the moment, it is the third topic on the page.)






__________________
romanigypsyeyes


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 862
Date: Mar 14, 2011
Permalink  
 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/12/martin.energy.costs/index.html

Interesting opinion piece.

I recently totaled my car and got a new one. My number one priority was gas millage. I'm not going to lie- it was REALLY difficult to find an "American" car with 30+ MPG under $10k. I ended up giving up and getting a really good deal on a 2010 Kia with awesome millage.

Part of the reason that things are moving so slowly is because of how short the American attention span is. Remember the blackout less than a decade ago? Or gas prices over $4? Do we not think this is going to happen again? Ugh.

ETA: 
I am not in favor of tapping our oil reserves. There is no logical reason behind this, it is just a gut feeling that one day we're going to need it a hell of a lot more than we need it right now. Especially with everything going on in the Middle East as of late.


-- Edited by romanigypsyeyes on Monday 14th of March 2011 11:58:34 AM

__________________
ImSoAnarchist


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Date: Mar 14, 2011
Permalink  
 

Okay, that's true. I mean to say that the hysteria is irrational (Of course, arguments can be made for and against; I'm no expert to judge, but the hysteria is irrational).

__________________
john doe


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: Mar 14, 2011
Permalink  
 

Ridiculous? Really? Its irrelevant if it was 40 year or 2000 year old technology. The fear of nuclear energy in this country before the incident and even more so now may not be rational but it is real.

__________________
longprime


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Mar 13, 2011
Permalink  
 

SA said that at time of construction, it was assumed that the odds of lossing grid power and onsite power at the same time and from the same cause as being extremely remote. evileye



__________________
ImSoAnarchist


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Date: Mar 13, 2011
Permalink  
 

To say nuclear is "out for the count" is ridiculous. Considering it was a plant constructed with 40 year old technology, it has held up remarkably well. The media just hypes it all up into a frenzy.

__________________
soccerguy315


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 572
Date: Mar 13, 2011
Permalink  
 

how many people has nuclear energy killed in the US compared to coal?

__________________
catahoula


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 963
Date: Mar 13, 2011
Permalink  
 

... you can say that "nucular" is down for the count.

With 5000 miles of ocean not enough of a buffer zone, I can't imagine where we could find to put a new plant:

California is closely monitoring efforts to contain leaks from a quake-damaged Japanese nuclear plant, a spokesman said Saturday, as experts said radiation could be blown out across the Pacific.

"At present there is no danger to California. However we are monitoring the situation closely in conjunction with our federal partners," Michael Sicilia, spokesman for California Department of Public Health, told AFP.

It's unclear what Mr. Sicilia suspects might happen in the coming days but its obvious he feels there is some serious worriation occuring among his citizens and he stands ready to both fan and dampen it.

I've got to laugh because at the rate we're going, solar panels over the chicken coops and home distallation of liquids from hand-harvested weeds is our energy future.

-- Edited by catahoula on Sunday 13th of March 2011 06:59:24 PM

__________________
longprime


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Mar 13, 2011
Permalink  
 

Some interesting technologies for nuclear power.
A couple of years ago Scientific American had a article.
Oregon State University has patented a micro-reactor.

newer designs do not rely on forced coolent flow and are more efficient. Think out of the reactor core. confuse

I am infavor of new designs and all alternatives. evileye

As energy cost increased, drilling increased. Now that energy costs are relatively low, drilling has moved to more productive areas. Oregon had two proposals to import LNG.  Both proposal entities are now bankrupt. One proposal is being revived to export excess LNG to Japan/China.



__________________
SamuraiLandshark


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Date: Mar 13, 2011
Permalink  
 

john doe,
I was thinking the same thing.  Nuke energy is done in the US, after this.


__________________
BigG


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 825
Date: Mar 13, 2011
Permalink  
 

The US government is missing a great opportunity to stabilize energy supplies, if not reduce carbon footprint.

Set a guaranteed minimum price of $75.00/barrel for liquid hydrocarbon that can be processed into kerosene (jet fuel), gasoline, and diesel. In five years the market will be glutted and the government will be paying people not to liquify coal, liquify natural gas, recover shale oil, and harvest algae.

Its not rocket science, the technology has been around for nearly a century.

Too bad our government's idea of an energy policy is to form a committee of "Big Oil"
executives.

__________________
john doe


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 660
Date: Mar 13, 2011
Permalink  
 

I guess with the situation in Japan, you can say that "nucular" is down for the count.

__________________
longprime


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2549
Date: Mar 13, 2011
Permalink  
 


evileye
Interesting.

Heard recently that we should relax exploration requirements for more oil.
Since 2008, USA using 5% less oil due to trillions of less miles driven and the move to natural gas.


__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Political & Elections -> Political & Elections - 2014 -> New Oil vs Conservation and alternatives


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard