# the energy compromise



## busara (Aug 5, 2008)

so here is the compromise developed by the "gang of 10"



> A group of Republican and Democratic senators dubbed the "Gang of 10" has put forth a compromise to break the stalemate on energy legislation.
> 
> The major components of the proposal include:
> 
> ...



Energy compromise offers test for Obama, McCain - CNN.com

thoughts?


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 5, 2008)

Except for the ANWR ban, and excluding the West Coast from offshore drilling... I like it... it is about what I have been calling for... though I would want more in there about expanding wind, natural gas, nuke, solar, etc... and I would like to see something calling for more refineries, since ours are now running in the 90+% capacity area


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 5, 2008)

> # Putting billions toward producing more alternative-fuel vehicles, in part paid for by the oil and gas industry



I wanna know who gets THAT money and who is going to oversee it.


----------



## busara (Aug 6, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Except for the ANWR ban, and excluding the West Coast from offshore drilling... I like it... it is about what I have been calling for... though I would want more in there about expanding wind, natural gas, nuke, solar, etc... and I would like to see something calling for more refineries, since ours are now running in the 90+% capacity area



agree with most of this. but i would rather the state decide whether to drill off their cost or in ANWR as it effects their beaches, etc.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 6, 2008)

I don't like it because Florida doesn't get a say and it brings drilling to 50 miles off the coast.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 6, 2008)

busara said:


> agree with most of this. but i would rather the state decide whether to drill off their cost or in ANWR as it effects their beaches, etc.




I agree with that.. I am saying lifting the federal 'ban' and allowing it that way... then going down to the states for their final decision



Also.. after looking again... I am not really into this thing of handing out 'billions' from the government as 'incentive' towards research.... there is enough incentive to sell/produce energy and efficient vehicles, etc... the promise of profit is going to be there


----------



## busara (Aug 6, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> I agree with that.. I am saying lifting the federal 'ban' and allowing it that way... then going down to the states for their final decision
> 
> 
> 
> Also.. after looking again... I am not really into this thing of handing out 'billions' from the government as 'incentive' towards research.... there is enough incentive to sell/produce energy and efficient vehicles, etc... *the promise of profit is going to be there*



so long as oil prices stay high. there was a similar push toward alternatives in the 70's, but then the price came down and nearly all research ceased.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 6, 2008)

busara said:


> agree with most of this. but i would rather the state decide whether to drill off their cost or in ANWR as it effects their beaches, etc.



Beaches? do you know anything about the area they want to drill in in ANWR. Beaches will not even be effected. ANWR is close to the already existing Alaska pipe line. Any oil drilled there will be piped down to the coast along already existing pipe line. 

I would also point out ANWR is 19 million acres and they only want to drill on 2000 acres of it. Imagine a postage stamp sitting on a tennis court. That is the area of ANWR they are talking about drilling on.


----------



## Lode (Aug 10, 2008)

I think, as it stands, it's a good starting point.

We need heavy investment in nuclear power, and political will to put economic pressure on shifting away from oil in the transportation sector. 

The market will not take care of this by itself. That's because the markets only concerned with finding the cheapest resource to continue our energy needs. Since the oil infrastructures so developed, that's the cheapest. 

But that ignores the real costs of oil. Environmental and especially political. We need heavy investments in alternative fuel sources. Billions of dollars is right. My concern is when it actually goes to comittee those "billions of dollars for alternative fuel vehicles" will just be shifted into some tax breaks for automobile manufacturers making hybrids, which is completely the wrong direction.


----------



## editec (Aug 10, 2008)

busara said:


> so here is the compromise developed by the "gang of 10"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Works for me.

Seems sensible, but of course it's really about about details, isn't it?

We allow drilling but the,  when it comes time to find the money to invest in GREEN TECH, it won't be there.

I want guarantees built in.


----------



## Lode (Aug 10, 2008)

editec said:


> Works for me.
> 
> Seems sensible, but of course it's really about about details, isn't it?
> 
> ...



That's pretty much exactly what I was saying. It's all about the details here, and I'm not remotely convinced either that the right kinds of incentives in alternative technologies will be there.


----------



## busara (Aug 11, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Beaches? do you know anything about the area they want to drill in in ANWR. Beaches will not even be effected. ANWR is close to the already existing Alaska pipe line. Any oil drilled there will be piped down to the coast along already existing pipe line.
> 
> I would also point out ANWR is 19 million acres and they only want to drill on 2000 acres of it. Imagine a postage stamp sitting on a tennis court. That is the area of ANWR they are talking about drilling on.





> but i would rather the state decide whether to drill off their cost or in ANWR as it effects their beaches, etc



apparently reading isnt your friend
off the coast would be beaches (where is the oil in the gulf located? in the gulf. in water. off beaches)
anwr would be the 'etc' i put. etc being national parks/reserves/etc. 

they want to drill in places other than anwr


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 11, 2008)

busara said:


> apparently reading isnt your friend
> off the coast would be beaches (where is the oil in the gulf located? in the gulf. in water. off beaches)
> anwr would be the 'etc' i put. etc being national parks/reserves/etc.
> 
> they want to drill in places other than anwr



Oil has washed up on beaches before anyone even thought of drilling there.

Natural Oil and Gas Seepage in the Coastal Areas of California -- MMS Pacific Region


----------



## busara (Aug 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Oil has washed up on beaches before anyone even thought of drilling there.
> 
> Natural Oil and Gas Seepage in the Coastal Areas of California -- MMS Pacific Region



does that mean that if drilling starts there will be no spills or leaks of oil?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 11, 2008)

busara said:


> does that mean that if drilling starts there will be no spills or leaks of oil?



no---it means that oil is ALREADY leaking and has been for centuries. Just a favorite tactic for enviros to scare people with. A pitiful excuse not to drill offshore.


----------



## busara (Aug 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> no---it means that oil is ALREADY leaking and has been for centuries. Just a favorite tactic for enviros to scare people with. A pitiful excuse not to drill offshore.



so what? some oil leaks naturally. a lot more will leak if drilling is started. 

some trees fall naturally. therefore there will be no harm if we cut down a bunch of trees.
stupid argument


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 11, 2008)

busara said:


> so what? some oil leaks naturally. a lot more will leak if drilling is started.
> 
> some trees fall naturally. therefore there will be no harm if we cut down a bunch of trees.
> stupid argument



garbage--technology has ways of dealing with that


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 11, 2008)

busara said:


> so here is the compromise developed by the "gang of 10"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Take the deal!  TAKE THE DEAL!!!  Howie?  Yes?  DEAL!


----------



## busara (Aug 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> garbage--technology has ways of dealing with that



yeah, drilling for oil is totally clean. absolutely no harm is done to the environment


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Aug 11, 2008)

busara said:


> so here is the compromise developed by the "gang of 10"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mostly good, but left out relaxed standards and fast track certification for expanded nuclear power.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Aug 11, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> I wanna know who gets THAT money and who is going to oversee it.



Pretty much the same groups of companies that make money from today's energy will make it from tomorrow's energy. Afterall they are the only companies with the resources necessary to build the massive infrastructure needed to handle new energy solutions.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Aug 11, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't like it because Florida doesn't get a say and it brings drilling to 50 miles off the coast.



The states never have a say in issues of national security.  And energy is a central component of national security.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 11, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Pretty much the same groups of companies that make money from today's energy will make it from tomorrow's energy. Afterall they are the only companies with the resources necessary to build the massive infrastructure needed to handle new energy solutions.



That's what I figure too. Some people aren't going to be thrilled when they figure that out.

SOLAR POWER !  brought to you by EXX-SUN !!!!!


----------



## jreeves (Aug 12, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> That's what I figure too. Some people aren't going to be thrilled when they figure that out.
> 
> SOLAR POWER !  brought to you by EXX-SUN !!!!!



Then the Liberal talking point will be....

Republicans are in the pockets of big Solar...


----------



## Chris (Aug 12, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Then the Liberal talking point will be....
> 
> Republicans are in the pockets of big Solar...



Solar energy shingles will be owned by individual home owners, not oil companies.

That's the difference.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Aug 12, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Solar energy shingles will be owned by individual home owners, not oil companies.
> 
> That's the difference.



They'll be manufactured and serviced by the energy firms.  And the lines back into the power grid they are connected to is also run by the energy firms.  Same for domestic wind turbines, a MUCH more efficient mechanism in most parts of the country than solar panels, except they cost a lot more.  Both are beyond the reach of average home owner today.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 12, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Solar energy shingles will be owned by individual home owners, not oil companies.
> 
> That's the difference.



Somebody will have to install this expensive technology correct? Most homeowners wouldn't be able to set up their home on Solar, after all correct? This means that somebody will make a pretty good living selling and maintaining this technology.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 13, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> They'll be manufactured and serviced by the energy firms.  And the lines back into the power grid they are connected to is also run by the energy firms.  Same for domestic wind turbines, a MUCH more efficient mechanism in most parts of the country than solar panels, except they cost a lot more.  Both are beyond the reach of average home owner today.


Not true. There's a entire little town running off of wind power.

Missouri Town Is Running On Vapor &mdash; And Thriving : NPR


----------



## Orange_Juice (Aug 13, 2008)

Republicans are just gumming up the works. They are being obstructionists to protect oil and gas profits, plain and simple. 



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13friedman.html?em

Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits  which expire in December  to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on Americas energy profile. 

Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year  which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldnt leave his office to vote. 

McCain did not show up on any votes, said Scott Sklar, president of The Stella Group, which tracks clean-technology legislation. Despite that, McCains campaign commercial running during the Olympics shows a bunch of spinning wind turbines  the very wind turbines that he would not cast a vote to subsidize, even though he supports big subsidies for nuclear power.

Barack Obama did not vote on July 30 either  which is equally inexcusable in my book  but he did vote on three previous occasions in favor of the solar and wind credits. 

The fact that Congress has failed eight times to renew them is largely because of a hard core of Republican senators who either dont want to give Democrats such a victory in an election year or simply dont believe in renewable energy.

What impact does this have? In the solar industry today there is a rush to finish any project that would be up and running by Dec. 31  when the credits expire  and most everything beyond that is now on hold. Consider the Solana concentrated solar power plant, 70 miles southwest of Phoenix in McCains home state. It is the biggest proposed concentrating solar energy project ever. The farsighted local utility is ready to buy its power. 

But because of the Senates refusal to extend the solar tax credits, we cannot get our bank financing, said Fred Morse, a senior adviser for the American operations of Abengoa Solar, which is building the project. Without the credits, the numbers dont work. Some 2,000 construction jobs are on hold.

Roger Efird is president of Suntech America  a major Chinese-owned solar panel maker that actually wants to build a new factory in America. Theyve been scouting the country for sites, and several governors have been courting them. But Efird told me that when the solar credits failed to pass the Senate, his boss told him: Dont set up any more meetings with governors. It makes absolutely no sense to do this if we dont have stability in the incentive programs.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Aug 13, 2008)

More Friedman: 



> Without taxing fossil fuels so they become more expensive and giving subsidies to renewable fuels so they become more competitive  and changing regulations so more people and companies have an interest in energy efficiency  we will not get innovation in clean power at the scale we need.
> 
> That is what this election should be focusing on. *Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid  so bloody stupid  that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad theyll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power  when you didnt. *



The GOP plays on American stupidity better than Democrats do


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 13, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Not true. There's a entire little town running off of wind power.
> 
> Missouri Town Is Running On Vapor &mdash; And Thriving : NPR



Take a look at how many turbines they need to run that tiny little town, and then figure out how many square miles of Turbines we would need to even supply 25% of the nations electricity.

I posted a link on another thread that said you need 30 square miles of Wind turbines to replace on medium sized conventional power plant. Think about that for a min. 

How much of the Nation would have to be covered in Wind turbines to power the Whole Nation? It simply is not a practical answer to our energy problems. It can be a good supplement to other sources, but it will NEVER be the answer.


----------



## busara (Aug 13, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Take a look at how many turbines they need to run that tiny little town, and then figure out how many square miles of Turbines we would need to even supply 25% of the nations electricity.
> 
> I posted a link on another thread that said you need 30 square miles of Wind turbines to replace on medium sized conventional power plant. Think about that for a min.
> 
> How much of the Nation would have to be covered in Wind turbines to power the Whole Nation? It simply is not a practical answer to our energy problems. It can be a good supplement to other sources, but it will NEVER be the answer.



i cant imagine anyone is talking about wind being the only solution. that is stupid. but it is a great supplement

and dont forget about offshore windfarms


----------



## Chris (Aug 13, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Take a look at how many turbines they need to run that tiny little town, and then figure out how many square miles of Turbines we would need to even supply 25% of the nations electricity.
> 
> I posted a link on another thread that said you need 30 square miles of Wind turbines to replace on medium sized conventional power plant. Think about that for a min.
> 
> How much of the Nation would have to be covered in Wind turbines to power the Whole Nation? It simply is not a practical answer to our energy problems. It can be a good supplement to other sources, but it will NEVER be the answer.



No one ever said wind was the answer, but solar shingles and home wind turbines can decentralize the energy supply.

Skystream 3.7 Compact Wind Turbine and Wind Energy System


----------

