(02-01-2020 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020 02:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with Bobby
Being 'clean' is a great goal, regardless of what one thinks about climate change etc.
I do have some questions for Bloomberg, who says he has a plan to get us 80% renewable by 2028. I'm calling BS on that. You can't replace 300mm+ cars and trucks and probably not build enough of a grid to deliver other energy as a replacement.
FYI - that 80% goal is about energy generation, so cars and trucks aren’t part of that equation.
So oil isn't energy?
Not picking on you Lad, just noting how misleading his ad is, because he doesn't say electricity generation... He says energy... and while many won't fall for it, many more will
(02-03-2020 04:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2020 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020 02:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with Bobby
Being 'clean' is a great goal, regardless of what one thinks about climate change etc.
I do have some questions for Bloomberg, who says he has a plan to get us 80% renewable by 2028. I'm calling BS on that. You can't replace 300mm+ cars and trucks and probably not build enough of a grid to deliver other energy as a replacement.
FYI - that 80% goal is about energy generation, so cars and trucks aren’t part of that equation.
So oil isn't energy?
Not picking on you Lad, just noting how misleading his ad is, because he doesn't say electricity generation... He says energy... and while many won't fall for it, many more will
Per Bloomberg's 2020 website:
Quote:By 2028, 80% of electricity-generation in the U.S. will come from clean sources...
https://www.mikebloomberg.com/2020/polic...lean-power
Not sure which ad you're referencing, but his website makes it clear that it's electricity generation.
Paid $1.88.9/gal tonight.
Everybody in america who owns a gas-driven vehicle is gaining from Trump's policies. Everybody who works in oil and gas,, and everybody who invests in it is winning. Everybody who uses it.
Who is losing? Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and all those other foreign producers.
Of course, I understand the plight of those people who wish we had $8 gas. The environmentalists. Of course, with this low cost, they can pass their savings on to environmental causes in the form of cash.
(02-03-2020 04:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-03-2020 04:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2020 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020 02:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with Bobby
Being 'clean' is a great goal, regardless of what one thinks about climate change etc.
I do have some questions for Bloomberg, who says he has a plan to get us 80% renewable by 2028. I'm calling BS on that. You can't replace 300mm+ cars and trucks and probably not build enough of a grid to deliver other energy as a replacement.
FYI - that 80% goal is about energy generation, so cars and trucks aren’t part of that equation.
So oil isn't energy?
Not picking on you Lad, just noting how misleading his ad is, because he doesn't say electricity generation... He says energy... and while many won't fall for it, many more will
Per Bloomberg's 2020 website:
Quote:By 2028, 80% of electricity-generation in the U.S. will come from clean sources...
https://www.mikebloomberg.com/2020/polic...lean-power
Not sure which ad you're referencing, but his website makes it clear that it's electricity generation.
It’s one of his tv ads. Most people don’t go read people’s websites. Heck, we often struggle to get people to read actual quotes rather than just some headline paraphrasing them. As I said, many won’t fall for it, but many will
With it being so obvious on his website, it makes me wonder why he took the unnecessary shortcut inthe tv ad
wind power
Something in there for everybody.
Now there are a lot of people out there who want to tell me what I am saying, so here it is:
“If government gets out of the way, provides opportunity, the free market is always going to create ways to do things. And that's exactly what happened with the wind energy market in West Texas,” King said.
After Texas guaranteed the lines would be built, private investment in turbines exploded.
(02-17-2020 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]wind power
Something in there for everybody.
Now there are a lot of people out there who want to tell me what I am saying, so here it is:
“If government gets out of the way, provides opportunity, the free market is always going to create ways to do things. And that's exactly what happened with the wind energy market in West Texas,” King said.
After Texas guaranteed the lines would be built, private investment in turbines exploded.
I think you'll find plenty of liberals on this board agree with you about the role government can, and likely should, play in helping support green energy by laying a foundation that can be used by private industry.
Glad we can count you as a supporter of the government smartly using tax-payer dollars to support green energy initiatives. IMO, far too many conservatives ardently oppose government support of new technologies by arguing that the government is picking winners and losers.
(02-17-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]wind power
Something in there for everybody.
Now there are a lot of people out there who want to tell me what I am saying, so here it is:
“If government gets out of the way, provides opportunity, the free market is always going to create ways to do things. And that's exactly what happened with the wind energy market in West Texas,” King said.
After Texas guaranteed the lines would be built, private investment in turbines exploded.
I think you'll find plenty of liberals on this board agree with you about the role government can, and likely should, play in helping support green energy by laying a foundation that can be used by private industry.
Glad we can count you as a supporter of the government smartly using tax-payer dollars to support green energy initiatives. IMO, far too many conservatives ardently oppose government support of new technologies by arguing that the government is picking winners and losers.
If it is done smartly, sure. Always a fan of doing things the smart way.
Smartly is the key word there, and you used it. Rep. King did it smartly. King, BTW, is one of the most hard right people around. Just try and get into his fenced compound without permission.
But the angle that most on the left take is, put a big tax on those energy producers, they are rich anyway, and let them figure it out.
When a proposal is put forth, I will be the arbiter of if it is "smart' or not. AOC's GND, for example - not smart.
(02-17-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]wind power
Something in there for everybody.
Now there are a lot of people out there who want to tell me what I am saying, so here it is:
“If government gets out of the way, provides opportunity, the free market is always going to create ways to do things. And that's exactly what happened with the wind energy market in West Texas,” King said.
After Texas guaranteed the lines would be built, private investment in turbines exploded.
I think you'll find plenty of liberals on this board agree with you about the role government can, and likely should, play in helping support green energy by laying a foundation that can be used by private industry.
Glad we can count you as a supporter of the government smartly using tax-payer dollars to support green energy initiatives. IMO, far too many conservatives ardently oppose government support of new technologies by arguing that the government is picking winners and losers.
In the example of electricity, if a modicum of government interaction can do something that substantially increases the level of the power pool at or below grid parity, then it is a no brainer.
But it is no government's role to wet nurse fledgling technologies, incubate them, than make them a perpetual 'ward of the state' as has happened so often.
(02-17-2020 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]wind power
Something in there for everybody.
Now there are a lot of people out there who want to tell me what I am saying, so here it is:
“If government gets out of the way, provides opportunity, the free market is always going to create ways to do things. And that's exactly what happened with the wind energy market in West Texas,” King said.
After Texas guaranteed the lines would be built, private investment in turbines exploded.
I think you'll find plenty of liberals on this board agree with you about the role government can, and likely should, play in helping support green energy by laying a foundation that can be used by private industry.
Glad we can count you as a supporter of the government smartly using tax-payer dollars to support green energy initiatives. IMO, far too many conservatives ardently oppose government support of new technologies by arguing that the government is picking winners and losers.
If it is done smartly, sure. Always a fan of doing things the smart way.
Smartly is the key word there, and you used it. Rep. King did it smartly. King, BTW, is one of the most hard right people around. Just try and get into his fenced compound without permission.
But the angle that most on the left take is, put a big tax on those energy producers, they are rich anyway, and let them figure it out.
When a proposal is put forth, I will be the arbiter of if it is "smart' or not. AOC's GND, for example - not smart.
The angle most on the left take is to support investment in clean energy AND to attempt to manage the negative externalities of conventional energy (be it pollution, CO2 emissions, etc.) through taxes/fees/regulations.
The key word above is AND. I don't think you'll find any liberal against government investment in green energy, yet you only present one portion of their platform...
(02-17-2020 09:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]wind power
Something in there for everybody.
Now there are a lot of people out there who want to tell me what I am saying, so here it is:
“If government gets out of the way, provides opportunity, the free market is always going to create ways to do things. And that's exactly what happened with the wind energy market in West Texas,” King said.
After Texas guaranteed the lines would be built, private investment in turbines exploded.
I think you'll find plenty of liberals on this board agree with you about the role government can, and likely should, play in helping support green energy by laying a foundation that can be used by private industry.
Glad we can count you as a supporter of the government smartly using tax-payer dollars to support green energy initiatives. IMO, far too many conservatives ardently oppose government support of new technologies by arguing that the government is picking winners and losers.
In the example of electricity, if a modicum of government interaction can do something that substantially increases the level of the power pool at or below grid parity, then it is a no brainer.
But it is no government's role to wet nurse fledgling technologies, incubate them, than make them a perpetual 'ward of the state' as has happened so often.
I agree that the governments role is not to keep alive technology that is not feasible. But I do believe the government has a role in supporting new technologies and incubating them to a point where they can be viable. It's identifying when the viable/non-viable point happens, and acting on it, that is crucial.
For example, I believe the government still subsidizes corn ethanol production.
(02-17-2020 09:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]wind power
Something in there for everybody.
Now there are a lot of people out there who want to tell me what I am saying, so here it is:
“If government gets out of the way, provides opportunity, the free market is always going to create ways to do things. And that's exactly what happened with the wind energy market in West Texas,” King said.
After Texas guaranteed the lines would be built, private investment in turbines exploded.
I think you'll find plenty of liberals on this board agree with you about the role government can, and likely should, play in helping support green energy by laying a foundation that can be used by private industry.
Glad we can count you as a supporter of the government smartly using tax-payer dollars to support green energy initiatives. IMO, far too many conservatives ardently oppose government support of new technologies by arguing that the government is picking winners and losers.
If it is done smartly, sure. Always a fan of doing things the smart way.
Smartly is the key word there, and you used it. Rep. King did it smartly. King, BTW, is one of the most hard right people around. Just try and get into his fenced compound without permission.
But the angle that most on the left take is, put a big tax on those energy producers, they are rich anyway, and let them figure it out.
When a proposal is put forth, I will be the arbiter of if it is "smart' or not. AOC's GND, for example - not smart.
The angle most on the left take is to support investment in clean energy AND to attempt to manage the negative externalities of conventional energy (be it pollution, CO2 emissions, etc.) through taxes/fees/regulations.
The key word above is AND. I don't think you'll find any liberal against government investment in green energy, yet you only present one portion of their platform...
Heaven's no, I will never find a liberal adverse to spending OPM on pet projects. You are right on that, boy-o.
So far, what I have seen by way of support is subsidies.
Ethanol, solar cars, etc. King's bill built transmission lines. Way different from subsidies. The bill had limits - we will spend this much to provide this support, while left wing subsides and other help is unending.
Like i said, if it is done in a smart way that encourages business, I will be for it. Smart is your word, but not all "green" deals are done smartly. I have been selective in my support, but I see no such selectivity from the left. Green=good, period to them.
I knew that some on the left would cherry pick the presentation in an effort to justify every green deal.
Thanks for using the word "smartly" in your original reply. It has really helped to focus the discussion.
(02-17-2020 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]wind power
Something in there for everybody.
Now there are a lot of people out there who want to tell me what I am saying, so here it is:
“If government gets out of the way, provides opportunity, the free market is always going to create ways to do things. And that's exactly what happened with the wind energy market in West Texas,” King said.
After Texas guaranteed the lines would be built, private investment in turbines exploded.
I think you'll find plenty of liberals on this board agree with you about the role government can, and likely should, play in helping support green energy by laying a foundation that can be used by private industry.
Glad we can count you as a supporter of the government smartly using tax-payer dollars to support green energy initiatives. IMO, far too many conservatives ardently oppose government support of new technologies by arguing that the government is picking winners and losers.
In the example of electricity, if a modicum of government interaction can do something that substantially increases the level of the power pool at or below grid parity, then it is a no brainer.
But it is no government's role to wet nurse fledgling technologies, incubate them, than make them a perpetual 'ward of the state' as has happened so often.
I agree that the governments role is not to keep alive technology that is not feasible. But I do believe the government has a role in supporting new technologies and incubating them to a point where they can be viable. It's identifying when the viable/non-viable point happens, and acting on it, that is crucial.
For example, I believe the government still subsidizes corn ethanol production.
I think you and I might have an opposite polarity here.
I assume you want this: prior to the non-viable/viable junction needs government support.
I would propose this: Let a technology 'grow naturally'. If the course of the technology holds a promise of it being economically viable. That is, let the technology show a roadmap to being economically sustainable. If the cost to the government is less than the 'savings' at that point, by all means the government should 'give a boost'.
But if the technology isnt developed, or if it cant show a reasonable path to being economically viable, then no way should the government get involved.
So no, I do not believe the government has a role, aside from an ancillary one, in supporting to any great extent any new energy technology. I do think a prudent government role is to allow the tech to mature to a point where a reasonable viable/non-viable decision can be made, and then even after that the amount of government intervention should be assessed.
Kind of a 'government help' for the energy equivalent of the 'last mile' issue in the telecommunication fiber optic arena.
(02-17-2020 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For example, I believe the government still subsidizes corn ethanol production.
An example of the 'picking winners and losers' that you seem to chastise conservatives over. Perhaps many of those you view as 'ardent' are simply using different language to say the same things you are? Corn ethanol isn't very efficient and it involves a food (and feed) crop. This was done mostly I suspect as a form of welfare as opposed to seeking new technology. Converting corn to ethanol has been around for a long time, with government taxes rather than subsidies.
(02-17-2020 11:11 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Kind of a 'government help' for the energy equivalent of the 'last mile' issue in the telecommunication fiber optic arena.
Perfect example.
If something is commercially viable, there is plenty of money looking for it. The government should help ensure that 'whatever it is' serves us all and not merely (as an example) high speed rail between LA and SF, but instead supports people in the CV who need to get to LA or SF.
Amusingly, rail (but not high speed) already exists between SF and SAC and of course busses between LA and SF... and we can push water over the Grapevine in CA, but not rail. You have to take a bus from LA to Bakersfield... so OF COURSE, the first spot for government subsidized rail is where subsidized (Amtrak) rail already exists
(02-17-2020 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]wind power
Something in there for everybody.
Now there are a lot of people out there who want to tell me what I am saying, so here it is:
“If government gets out of the way, provides opportunity, the free market is always going to create ways to do things. And that's exactly what happened with the wind energy market in West Texas,” King said.
After Texas guaranteed the lines would be built, private investment in turbines exploded.
I think you'll find plenty of liberals on this board agree with you about the role government can, and likely should, play in helping support green energy by laying a foundation that can be used by private industry.
Glad we can count you as a supporter of the government smartly using tax-payer dollars to support green energy initiatives. IMO, far too many conservatives ardently oppose government support of new technologies by arguing that the government is picking winners and losers.
In the example of electricity, if a modicum of government interaction can do something that substantially increases the level of the power pool at or below grid parity, then it is a no brainer.
But it is no government's role to wet nurse fledgling technologies, incubate them, than make them a perpetual 'ward of the state' as has happened so often.
I agree that the governments role is not to keep alive technology that is not feasible. But I do believe the government has a role in supporting new technologies and incubating them to a point where they can be viable. It's identifying when the viable/non-viable point happens, and acting on it, that is crucial.
For example, I believe the government still subsidizes corn ethanol production.
The government doesn't subsidize corn ethanol production because it can be incubated to the point of being economically viable, the government subsidizes corn ethanol production because fermentation is the most wasteful, most inefficient, and most costly way of making ethanol of the processes currently used. On top of that, ethanol is not a particularly good motor fuel. It has a lot of drawbacks, and no advantages. It will never be economically viable.
It's not new technology, either. It's been around for centuries.
(02-17-2020 12:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:47 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-17-2020 09:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]wind power
Something in there for everybody.
Now there are a lot of people out there who want to tell me what I am saying, so here it is:
“If government gets out of the way, provides opportunity, the free market is always going to create ways to do things. And that's exactly what happened with the wind energy market in West Texas,” King said.
After Texas guaranteed the lines would be built, private investment in turbines exploded.
I think you'll find plenty of liberals on this board agree with you about the role government can, and likely should, play in helping support green energy by laying a foundation that can be used by private industry.
Glad we can count you as a supporter of the government smartly using tax-payer dollars to support green energy initiatives. IMO, far too many conservatives ardently oppose government support of new technologies by arguing that the government is picking winners and losers.
In the example of electricity, if a modicum of government interaction can do something that substantially increases the level of the power pool at or below grid parity, then it is a no brainer.
But it is no government's role to wet nurse fledgling technologies, incubate them, than make them a perpetual 'ward of the state' as has happened so often.
I agree that the governments role is not to keep alive technology that is not feasible. But I do believe the government has a role in supporting new technologies and incubating them to a point where they can be viable. It's identifying when the viable/non-viable point happens, and acting on it, that is crucial.
For example, I believe the government still subsidizes corn ethanol production.
The government doesn't subsidize corn ethanol production because it can be incubated to the point of being economically viable, the government subsidizes corn ethanol production because fermentation is the most wasteful, most inefficient, and most costly way of making ethanol of the processes currently used. On top of that, ethanol is not a particularly good motor fuel. It has a lot of drawbacks, and no advantages. It will never be economically viable.
It's not new technology, either. It's been around for centuries.
I was using corn ethanol as an example of where the government is incorrectly subsidizing a technology (see bold text). Corn ethanol is a perfect example of where the government has continued to support a technology past a point where we know it is not really a viable technology.
Apparently I need to be a bit more explicit in my posts.
Corn ethanol is woefully inefficient. Sugar cane is a much more efficient source of ethanol. Corn ethanol burns one gallon of fuel for every two gallons produced. With sugar cane, it's more like one gallon used to ten gallons produced. Brazil has a huge sugar cane ethanol industry, and 44% of the motor fuel in Brazil is ethanol. Petrobras would like to bring sugar cane ethanol to the US in a big way, but current tariffs and subsidies prevent it.
This is just one more example of the green movement pushing us into a technology that is either not feasible or not ready. We have to leave oil is their mantra. But we don't have anywhere to go instead.
So why do we stick with corn? Best reason I can come up with is because Iowa is the first caucus.
and we probably still subsidize sugar.... but if we simply stopped subsidizing corn for ethanol, sugar for ethanol would likely create enough demand that we wouldn't need to subsidize it.... and... we'd probably need to give less to island nations in the Caribbean where it is often grown
The insanity circle
(02-17-2020 01:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Corn ethanol is woefully inefficient. Sugar cane is a much more efficient source of ethanol. Corn ethanol burns one gallon of fuel for every two gallons produced. With sugar cane, it's more like one gallon used to ten gallons produced. Brazil has a huge sugar cane ethanol industry, and 44% of the motor fuel in Brazil is ethanol. Petrobras would like to bring sugar cane ethanol to the US in a big way, but current tariffs and subsidies prevent it.
This is just one more example of the green movement pushing us into a technology that is either not feasible or not ready. We have to leave oil is their mantra. But we don't have anywhere to go instead.
So why do we stick with corn? Best reason I can come up with is because Iowa is the first caucus.
I had seen studies that show that US corn ethanol is a net deficit BTU producer energy.
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/p...thanol.pdf