Can we at least GET some of these "Alternative Energy Sources" into real working status before we go TAXING the begeezus out of ALL WE HAVE


+.0005

it has some merit.............

I just get the feeling there is this unholy alliance though. Big Business...... Big 3............ maybe the U.S. govt.(petro dollars) all want to keep us on oil.

Mach, you have a point. It seems that the government has been talking up alternative energy since the '70s and nobody has started mass production of any source. I'm beginning to think that if you want to lower your energy bill, you're going to have to put the windmill up in your own backyard. I guess if you want to make some cash off of it you can sell off that energy to your neighbors.

(03-18-2009 07:53 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Mach, you have a point. It seems that the government has been talking up alternative energy since the '70s and nobody has started mass production of any source. I'm beginning to think that if you want to lower your energy bill, you're going to have to put the windmill up in your own backyard. I guess if you want to make some cash off of it you can sell off that energy to your neighbors.

There is NO doubt that the government is is bed with the oil companies.

If we had a free market...and the consumers actually wanted these alternative options...the market would respond.

I think it is doing it now to some degree and as the technologies improve, more people buy these products and the prices come down....The market will provide these things despite the governmental collusion.

In 1975 the US imported about 1/3 of its oil. Brasil imported 99 percent of its oil. Both countries announced plans to become energy independent. Today the US imports 2/3 of its oil, a good bit of that from Brasil. Brasil imports some natural gas from Bolivia, but recent finds offshore may eliminate the need to do that. Overall Brasil is a net exporter of energy today.

What did they do right that we did wrong? When I talk to my acquaintances at Petrobras, they tell me three things:

1. Go with an all hands on deck approach, rather than trying to pick one technology or a few, to the exclusion of all others. For us that would mean solar and wind and nuclear and clean coal and drill here, drill now.
2. Go with the technology that was available at the time, and count on incremental improvements as time passes, rather than waiting on technologies that exist only in labs. For them, this meant sugar cane ethanol; for us today, it probably means the same thing, at least in the short run. Importing sugar cane ethanol from Latin America has the potential to replace about 30 percent of our gasoline usage. No other alternative comes close.
3. Instead of an adversarial relationship with the oil industry, they got Petrobras directly involved in every step. Petrobras supported ethanol, becuase Petrobras was able to make money on ethanol.

It's tempting to say that point 3 was easier for them because Petrobras is a state company, but that doesn't fit the reality. Petrobras was a state-owned, state-run oil company in 1975; it is not today. The state still has an ownership stake, but a large part of its stock was sold to private interests, and there are regulations in place explicitly keeping the state from making management decisions. Petrobras is a private company, the government just happens to own a bunch of the stock. Petrobras is also the leading deep water drilling technology company in the world; how many would be surprised to find out that a Brasilian company holds that title?

I honestly think that getting a head start on this stuff is a good idea. The leasing of use of the power off of a windmill could turn I nice dollar. Hmmmm.

(03-18-2009 09:20 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and another thing.................. smn talked about bums and welfare..... I can't find it and I know I read it this morning. This is another fallacy. There are approximately 14 million women and children that get Aid to Families with Dependent Children. There are no bums getting welfare. So why do you guys on the right paint democrats that way. It's not happening so quit saying it. I just wish we could at least talk the truth to each other. You guys are so caught up with your talking points you miss the forest through the trees.

Pay as you go............ that's what I call for and you all know that. I've been saying I would be happy paying more taxes. 1st and foremost is we should balance the budget. I pray Obama taxes gasoline. Have you seen what has happened to hybrid sales lately? Do any of you wonder why Oil collapsed just when we were starting on the trek of weaning off of it? Tax oil for national security. Tax oil to build infrastructure. Tax oil for socialized medicine. GOP become proponents of this I sign up for the GOP the next day. I don't care about the gang affiliation. I just want results.

Mach, I think you're a decent person with a good heart but we have got to find a way to stop that heart from bleeding. When it comes to the bums and welfare that you said I wrote about please allow me to give you an example of what I mean: Octomom!!! I know it's an extreme example but there are millions like her out there with no jobs, a bunch of kids and living off bogus disability and SS payments. I don't think any conservative on this board will disagree with me when I say that we could chip in a little to help people when they're down on their luck. But those same people will also tell you that help shouldn't last a for ever and personal accountability is a belief we stand shoulder to shoulder on. Why should I be responsible for the irresponsibility of others?

Do you know that if you lowered taxes people would spend more and the more people spent the more tax revenue the government would collect? Oil and many, many other things are already taxed through the roof. If you raise the tax on oil that will translate to higher prices on everything from food to clothing to out-call escort services. You guys on the left always remind us about your civil liberties, well what about the liberty of keeping some of what you earn? Doesn't it bother you that someone takes your money and spends it in a way you might not approve of? And I'm not taking just about government, the same thing happens with unions.

:iagree:

(03-18-2009 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 1975 the US imported about 1/3 of its oil. Brasil imported 99 percent of its oil. Both countries announced plans to become energy independent. Today the US imports 2/3 of its oil, a good bit of that from Brasil. Brasil imports some natural gas from Bolivia, but recent finds offshore may eliminate the need to do that. Overall Brasil is a net exporter of energy today.

Brazil also doesn't have the EPA, the Clean Air Act and could revamp to an ethanol based economy better than the US.

I saw screw ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel. Its inefficient. If those Aggie Microbiologists can get the genetically engineered bacteria perfected that process butanol, we would be better off. You don't have to use corn for butanol, and butanol has almost the equivalent energy as gasoline.

(03-18-2009 10:01 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-18-2009 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 1975 the US imported about 1/3 of its oil. Brasil imported 99 percent of its oil. Both countries announced plans to become energy independent. Today the US imports 2/3 of its oil, a good bit of that from Brasil. Brasil imports some natural gas from Bolivia, but recent finds offshore may eliminate the need to do that. Overall Brasil is a net exporter of energy today.

Brazil also doesn't have the EPA, the Clean Air Act and could revamp to an ethanol based economy better than the US.
I saw screw ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel. Its inefficient. If those Aggie Microbiologists can get the genetically engineered bacteria perfected that process butanol, we would be better off. You don't have to use corn for butanol, and butanol has almost the equivalent energy as gasoline.

But this is the lesson from Brasil. Don't wait on what's in the lab. Go with what you got now, and implement incremental improvements as you go.

We'll wait 20 years for the genetically engineered bacteria, and maybe they'll work and maybe they won't. Meanwhile, we'll import who knows how many barrels of oil.

With ethanol, we're still importing, but we have some leverage. If ethanol gets too expensive, we use oil; if oil gets too expensive, we use ethanol.

Yes, ethanol is less efficient than some alternatives. But those alternatives are still in the lab. And ethanol is more efficient that nothing.

(03-18-2009 10:01 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Brazil also doesn't have the EPA, the Clean Air Act and could revamp to an ethanol based economy better than the US.

The revamping to an ethanol economy was helped tremendously by getting Petrobras involved as an integral player in the solution.

Petrobras has a business plan in place to do the same thing here as they did in Brasil, by the way, if only we would let them.

(03-18-2009 02:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I take blue collar as the ass in the grass people who make this nation go.

More vague cliches from our 6th grader.

Just what does this mean? Does the construction site foreman make this nation go, or not?

Jack Welch
Bill Gates
John D Rockeffeller

those guys make this nation go?

You know O. Henry wrote a story about this, entitled "The Man Above". Of course it has his ironic, and thus somewhat harsh, teaching style, but the lesson to be learned was that each person plays a role, and we all need other people (blue collar, white collar) to succeed. Ignore that, and you'll fail.

Even 2000 years ago St. Paul tried to teach people this very lesson, "Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment,"

(03-18-2009 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What did they do right that we did wrong? When I talk to my acquaintances at Petrobras, they tell me three things:

1. Go with an all hands on deck approach, rather than trying to pick one technology or a few, to the exclusion of all others. For us that would mean solar and wind and nuclear and clean coal and drill here, drill now.
2. Go with the technology that was available at the time, and count on incremental improvements as time passes, rather than waiting on technologies that exist only in labs. For them, this meant sugar cane ethanol; for us today, it probably means the same thing, at least in the short run. Importing sugar cane ethanol from Latin America has the potential to replace about 30 percent of our gasoline usage. No other alternative comes close.
3. Instead of an adversarial relationship with the oil industry, they got Petrobras directly involved in every step. Petrobras supported ethanol, becuase Petrobras was able to make money on ethanol.

DUH! No offense Owl, it's just that there are folks who are advocating this very thing, but political powers (from the left and right) continually serve to obstruct this.

This is exactly the format that Rumsfeld was trying to insert into Defense Acquisition.

And this is exactly the format that many people have been saying should be the driver for US energy policy.

It was the driver behind hybrid vehicles. It's the driver behind many good ideas, but political forces, aided by big media who like to see problems not solutions, keep arguing for the "100% solution". Some perfect answer that will solve every problem w/o producing any. That ain't gonna happen. But that shouldn't stop progress b/c it's not "perfect".

(03-18-2009 10:01 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-18-2009 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  In 1975 the US imported about 1/3 of its oil. Brasil imported 99 percent of its oil. Both countries announced plans to become energy independent. Today the US imports 2/3 of its oil, a good bit of that from Brasil. Brasil imports some natural gas from Bolivia, but recent finds offshore may eliminate the need to do that. Overall Brasil is a net exporter of energy today.

Brazil also doesn't have the EPA, the Clean Air Act and could revamp to an ethanol based economy better than the US.
I saw screw ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel. Its inefficient. If those Aggie Microbiologists can get the genetically engineered bacteria perfected that process butanol, we would be better off. You don't have to use corn for butanol, and butanol has almost the equivalent energy as gasoline.

Is importing sugar cane ethanol a perfect solution? No.
Is there anything better that's available today? No.
Is that reason enough to do it? Yes.

(03-18-2009 03:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for oil, I agree that we need to tax the price up to a level that makes alternatives cost-competitive and discourages consumption, while minimizing the impact on poor people. Charles Krauthammer's revenue-neutral carbon tax is one possible approach. He gives the money back through social security, while I would include it in the Fair Tax prefund. Also, I wouldn't make it totally revenue-neutral, I'd make it a net positive to generate some revenues. I would use those revenues for infrastructure projects designed to cut fuel consumption--solar farms, wind farms, power grid improvements, etc.--but not to subsidize alternatives. With the increased tax on oil, those alternatives will become price competitive, and that's all the "subsidy" the free market needs.

Brutal Honesty, Who is affected by higher fuel costs, a worker in Houston, or one in New York City? Fact is if you live out west in the wide open spaces, chances are you use more fuel commuting than the eastern Yankee counterpart. Is that fair? no it is not,

(03-19-2009 08:19 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  DUH! No offense Owl, it's just that there are folks who are advocating this very thing, but political powers (from the left and right) continually serve to obstruct this.
This is exactly the format that Rumsfeld was trying to insert into Defense Acquisition.
And this is exactly the format that many people have been saying should be the driver for US energy policy.
It was the driver behind hybrid vehicles. It's the driver behind many good ideas, but political forces, aided by big media who like to see problems not solutions, keep arguing for the "100% solution". Some perfect answer that will solve every problem w/o producing any. That ain't gonna happen. But that shouldn't stop progress b/c it's not "perfect".

I know several people at Petrobras. I find it very frustrating to talk with them. They have the road map to solve our energy problem. They have already executed it. It is so obvious when you talk with them.

But we can't do it.
For the reasons you cite.
Very frustrating.

(03-19-2009 08:44 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-18-2009 03:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As for oil, I agree that we need to tax the price up to a level that makes alternatives cost-competitive and discourages consumption, while minimizing the impact on poor people. Charles Krauthammer's revenue-neutral carbon tax is one possible approach. He gives the money back through social security, while I would include it in the Fair Tax prefund. Also, I wouldn't make it totally revenue-neutral, I'd make it a net positive to generate some revenues. I would use those revenues for infrastructure projects designed to cut fuel consumption--solar farms, wind farms, power grid improvements, etc.--but not to subsidize alternatives. With the increased tax on oil, those alternatives will become price competitive, and that's all the "subsidy" the free market needs.

Brutal Honesty, Who is affected by higher fuel costs, a worker in Houston, or one in New York City? Fact is if you live out west in the wide open spaces, chances are you use more fuel commuting than the eastern Yankee counterpart. Is that fair? no it is not,

Question back at you. Is life fair? No it is not.

Another question back at you. If we don't do this, and we don't develop domestic supplies, who gets hurt worse when oil goes to $200/bbl or more?

I live out west in the wide open spaces and I commute longer and use more fuel doing it. And I think this is a good idea.

(03-19-2009 08:19 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-18-2009 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What did they do right that we did wrong? When I talk to my acquaintances at Petrobras, they tell me three things:
1. Go with an all hands on deck approach, rather than trying to pick one technology or a few, to the exclusion of all others. For us that would mean solar and wind and nuclear and clean coal and drill here, drill now.
2. Go with the technology that was available at the time, and count on incremental improvements as time passes, rather than waiting on technologies that exist only in labs. For them, this meant sugar cane ethanol; for us today, it probably means the same thing, at least in the short run. Importing sugar cane ethanol from Latin America has the potential to replace about 30 percent of our gasoline usage. No other alternative comes close.
3. Instead of an adversarial relationship with the oil industry, they got Petrobras directly involved in every step. Petrobras supported ethanol, becuase Petrobras was able to make money on ethanol.

DUH! No offense Owl, it's just that there are folks who are advocating this very thing, but political powers (from the left and right) continually serve to obstruct this.
This is exactly the format that Rumsfeld was trying to insert into Defense Acquisition.
And this is exactly the format that many people have been saying should be the driver for US energy policy.
It was the driver behind hybrid vehicles. It's the driver behind many good ideas, but political forces, aided by big media who like to see problems not solutions, keep arguing for the "100% solution". Some perfect answer that will solve every problem w/o producing any. That ain't gonna happen. But that shouldn't stop progress b/c it's not "perfect".

Interestingly enough, those are the same lessons we would learn from the space program.
You know, the one that JFK started with his "Why does Rice play Texas?" speech (sorry, had to get that in) in 1962?
Only, we already had a space program.
We already had astronauts.
Several of them had already flown in space before JFK gave that speech.
But that's another story.

(03-19-2009 08:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Interestingly enough, those are the same lessons we would learn from the space program.

I thought about citing that as well, however there is enough discrepency currently w/in NASA to make that a moot point. Space Shuttle is a perfect example of trying to force fit a program...while Griffin's decision to retire them was a better example of going w/ what works and looking for spiral upgrades.

(03-19-2009 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Is importing sugar cane ethanol a perfect solution? No.
Is there anything better that's available today? No.
Is that reason enough to do it? Yes.

On this item specifically I'd want to see the engineering numbers. EtOH has a low net energy yield (at least from corn) so we'd need an honest accounting of the energy costs to grow and transport sugar cane, and EtOH production.

However, if you get gov't subsidies out of the way, business has a knack for doing that very thing (honestly) because otherwise they lose money.

Meanwhile, there are alternatives for sugar cane.

http://www.verenium.com/

(At least I think this is what this means, as apparently I don't understand sciency stuff)