Mookie's Energy Plan

Email Print posted by alphasigmookie 05/26/2008 02:05:20 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Ok, here is my tentative comprehensive energy plan.  If you don't strongly disagree with at least one part of it I have clearly failed in my goal. 

  • Open drilling in all locations on us territory.  Sell leases on an auction basis open to all citizens and oil companies.  If environmentalists pay more than oil companies they can keep them off the land.  Use revenues half as tax rebate and half for sustainable energy research.  Include strong environmental protections for sensitive areas
  •  Streamline permit process for new nuclear plants
  • Initiate a national program for nuclear fuel reprocessing
  • Set a national goal to produce 2 million barrels a day of oil from coal to liquids technology within 15 years and mandate future integration with carbon sequestration
  • Slowly reduce corn ethanol subsidies while transfering them to biofuel subsidies for fuels that do not compete directly with food. 
  • Renew solar and wind tax breaks for 20 years with higher initial values but slowly reduce over time
  • Invest heavily in carbon sequestration and set goals for future incorporation into all existing and future coal plants. 
  • Slowly phase in a tax on all fossil fuels entering or produced in the US.  Start with the equivalent of $.10 a gallon increase per year for the first 5 years and $.25 per year for the next 5. 
  • Take 90% of the funding currently going to fuel cells and hydrogen and divert it to battery and ultracapaciter research
  • Initiate a national push for development of a smart grid that allows easier incorporation of distributed energy sources and allows plug in vehicles to act as storage durring off peak times and generation near peak. 
  • Provide matching federal funding for all local and regional mass transit projects
  • Provide tax breaks for any investment in rail infrastructure
  • Build a high speed maglev train system connecting major cities on the east coast (DC, Philly, Baltimore, NY, Boston)
< Young Turks Meet Members in Long Branch, NJ: Drinks are Had! | Minnesota Nice for Obama and some other news >
 Display:
Mookie's Energy Plan | 64 comments (64 topical, 0 hidden)
And free lemonade for everyone! (none / 0)

Maglev trains are nifty-keen, but plans to build them elsewhere have been scrapped citing inter-system incompatibility and disproportionate operating costs.  Only China has managed to pull off a successful linear motorcar railway. Germany toyed briefly with plans but has shelved them indefinitely.  Japan's tentative proposals, as a direct result, have also been tainted with doubt. 

I agree in principal, but the government has a long-established reacharound relationship going with the auto industry.  It would take one hell of a fancy Powerpoint presentation to convince those fools that rail development could somehow be more profitable than just slathering the entire country in pavement and letting people tool around in their gas-guzzling suicidemobiles.

by OneHitKill on 05/26/2008 12:13:10 PM EST

they tore out all the (none / 0)
fricken tracks anyway. They are now nature trails


All Conservatives Are Liars- Mike Malloy

by Chinese Democracy on 05/26/2008 01:04:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
true (none / 0)
OK maybe we can just go with high speed trains like the TGV in france.  But maglevs are freakin sweet!  The driving force will be continuously increasing gas prices. If gas drops to $2 a gallon again you are correct, but the likelyhood of that happing are about as likely as a quick and peaceful resolution to the Iraq conflict.  When all the airlines are out of business due to high fuel prices we're going to need some way to get around. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/26/2008 02:29:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Another crypto-republican? (none / 0)

"Open drilling in all locations on us territory."


If the world's largest oil field was found under Washington DC-Arlington cemetery? Thus, already your proposal here fails, its not politically possible to have the entire US open for drilling. Also, you could be destroying valuable natural habitat that serves a purpose in keeping the fragile ecosystem for the interests of some fat soccer mom being able to drive to the corner store, instead of walking. The IRRATIONALITY of capitalism is so amazing that it boggles the mind it really does. 


"Sell leases on an auction basis open to all citizens and oil companies.  If environmentalists pay more than oil companies they can keep them off the land."


I wonder who is going to win that one? Its such a Republican proposal. The mythology of the "free market" ignoring the power of the respective entities. Oil firms are the largest firms on EARTH, they can literally outbid anyone so this proposal is already filled with such unrealistic assumptions that it falls flat. 


"Set a national goal to produce 2 million barrels a day of oil from coal to liquids technology within 15 years and mandate future integration with carbon sequestration"


Too bad its take more energy to make the coal-oil than what we get out of the process. One book that discussed the future prospects of oil talked about this coal-oil business, it said, and I am paraphrasing, "coal to oil conversion is only efficient in depleting coal resources twice as fast." Add that  it is dirtier than traditional petrol to produce and in emissions, it is makes no sense environmentally or logically, especially with the way that coal is being mined by blasting mountains to nothing and leaving a poisoned moonscape and poisoned water-ways and the loss of carbon sinks for short term gain...VERY short term. 


"Renew solar and wind tax breaks for 20 years with higher initial values but slowly reduce over time"


Not enough, there has to be more incentives to invest in renewable energy. People do not realize that the higher that the oil price goes, the less incentive there is to invest in renewable. There has to be mandates, and goals as to how much of the energy mix must be renewable, forcing companies to invest in renewable. Giving then tax breaks is a joke, they will build a little wind farm with no appreciable effect on the energy matrix, UNLESS the tax is a sliding tax regime whereby the more renewable energy you produce increases your tax break. But as long as more money is to be made through oil, tax breaks will not be sufficient. 


"Provide matching federal funding for all local and regional mass transit projects"


I doubt that will ever happen, Detroit and the oil companies have destroyed public transit in the US in the 40s and 50s so people needed to use their cars. There will be intense lobbying, and a ad campaign telling the American people that the government is intruding on their "right" to drive on the open road and determine your future...its pure bull shit, but Americans will buy it. 


Your whole proposal is avoiding the real issue, consumption. You talk about production as if that is the real problem. Lets assume we can produce more, its only going to postpone this problem to a future date, and increase pollution and make global warming worse! This is why I am asking if you are a Republican? Your proposals are also still way too friendly to the massive corporations in the US, and its does absolutely NOTHING to solve the issue, it makes it worse.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 12:57:45 PM EST

agree with Nick (none / 0)
It's consumption that is the problem, not production.  The current high prices are driving research into alternatives as well as forcing Americans to reduce consumption and that is GOOD!  No matter what we do, the era of cheap oil seems at an end and we need to adjust and move forward.  Fact:  the U.S. has only 5% of the world's population, but uses 25% of all oil produced. 

by desertpear on 05/26/2008 03:30:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The problem with reducing consumption... (none / 0)
hey, why cant i consume as much shit as I want if I am willing to pay for it? Being oil, fuel, candybars, video games whatever - I have the right as an American to consume until my little heart is content - I really dont give a shit what it does to the next guy - its my right!!!!!

Now, getting over that argument specious and selfish as it is will be a very difficult sell for the American public - this is why Environmentalists and Greenies are always (and rightfully) labeled Marxists and Commies - you want to fuck our way of life to better someone elses in india or China - maybe they should have come out of the stone ages a bit sooner like we did!!! why should we stop - make them stop having 20 babies - talk about consumption!!!!!

:)

by bobo1 on 05/26/2008 09:22:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bobo Tx (none / 0)
in China the are only allowed to have ONE child

Do you cut Ken trolls oxygen when you use his brain?


All Conservatives Are Liars- Mike Malloy

by Chinese Democracy on 05/26/2008 10:27:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Then maybe... (none / 0)
They should cut that down by half with 1.1 Billion and counting!!!!

how bout India? Bangledesh? Pakistan where birthrates are above 4?

maybe we're fighting the wrong war.....

:)

by bobo1 on 05/26/2008 10:48:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Change starts with you (none / 0)

Bobo1, have I got a new club for you to join.

VHEMT

by OneHitKill on 05/26/2008 10:54:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thats Hillarious!!!! (none / 0)
To think that people actually sit around and think of this shit is truly astounding!!!

I have contributed 3 known population additions (as well as a few suspected others, oops) - so I dont figure I fall in line with your group!!!!

i just hate it when Canadians and Chinamen tell me I shouldnt be wasteful and consume what I choose - what the Hell good is it to be a slobby lazy wasteful Fucking American if i have little pee-wee libs telling me to stop consuming? Commies!!!!

:) thanks for thinking of me!!!

War is Natural Population Control!!!!

by bobo1 on 05/26/2008 11:02:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Died of consumption (none / 0)
You're sick.

by OneHitKill on 05/28/2008 05:42:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The problem with you is (none / 0)
At any moment you can claim to be joking or completely serious, and you can claim it is obvious either way.

This is because you have no actual sense of humor and are at least mildly sociopathic.  The rest of us use commonly-accepted linguistic and literary cues when writing things, which means everyone knows, for the most part, when we're joking.  Your aim, however, is to be able to absolve yourself of responsibility for anything you say at any moment, not to actually communicate, amuse, or contribute in any meaningful way.

You're actually mildly fascinating to watch, though.  Don't go anywhere, y'hear?

by jarett on 05/28/2008 01:27:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My psychiatrist disagrees... (none / 0)
I am a bit more than "mildly sociopathic". But thats not important...

Im glad I amuse you, although thats not really my intent - I just enjoy engaging (or enraging) into conversation about political issues of the day - I dont seek absolution or approval from anyone - I just enjoy talking and engagement in banter - you dont have to take anything I say as Gospel (nor would I ever expect to take myself to seriously), but some of the people here think WAY TOO MUCH of themselves, and for that they must suffer!!

Thanks for your thoughts, Jarrett - you're a smart kid it seems!

:)

by bobo1 on 05/28/2008 04:30:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bobo, Marxists want to control your life. (none / 0)
They want to control how much you can consume.

They want to control what you say, so that it's not politically incorrect to Marxism.

They want to control what you think, so that it's not hateful to Marxism.

They want to redistribute your wealth, so that people in need (and people who don't enjoy work) are taken care of.

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 10:29:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know Ken... (none / 0)
It just infuriates me to think that they are gaining strength and popularity while espousing this tripe as science and fact - Why do they want to ruin our way of life?

Thanks again...

:)

by bobo1 on 05/26/2008 10:50:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
For your own good (none / 0)
When the bus is out of control, sometimes you have to wrest the steering wheel from the underqualified driver.  When your old way of life is but a sepia-toned memory, you won't even miss it.

by OneHitKill on 05/26/2008 10:59:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
@ bobo the clown (none / 0)

"hey, why cant i consume as much shit as I want if I am willing to pay for it? "


Who said you can't? Why make up arguments that aren't there? What I am saying is to make the cars you drive, drive on battery power or something other than oil. See this is where you are illogical, you are probably only a worker, a little man, who only has so much money. Eventually if the prices go too high you will simply not be able to afford the oil, and because in your illogical selfish rage did not support alternative forms of transportation or other energy saving means of living, thus you screwed yourself. Its people like you on which the system that screws everyone over depends on. 


[i]I have the right as an American to consume until my little heart is content - I really dont give a shit what it does to the next guy - its my right!!!!![/i]


Where is it your right? Its a privilege, you have no legal right to consumption of oil. I assume since you are so pro-consumption, you are pro-decriminalization of drugs? You have NO RIGHTS in the economy, get over yourself. 


[i]you want to fuck our way of life to better someone elses in india or China[/i]


Who is "you"? Where has any of this nonsense been said? Again, what drugs are you on? None of these points have been raised.


[i]maybe they should have come out of the stone ages a bit sooner like we did!!![/i]


Thats pretty hard when you have Empires ruling over you and creating laws and conditions that prevent industrialization for about 200 years. Why are people like you allowed to vote? Yes I am an elitist. 


[i]i just hate it when Canadians and Chinamen tell me I shouldnt be wasteful and consume what I choose - what the Hell good is it to be a slobby lazy wasteful Fucking American if i have little pee-wee libs telling me to stop consuming? Commies!!!![/i]


Your SHEER ignorance is astounding! First, yes most Americans are fat slobs, and yes the world hates it and now the world along with mother earth is fighting back. Secondly, no one is telling you to stop consuming you bone head, all we are telling you is taht if you want to avoid the destruction of society and the environment as we know it, and for your three children to live in a world that can sustain them without resource wars, we have to conserve. I understand you don't get the idea of LIMITED RESOURCES, and TEMPORAL BURDENS, but these do exist. 


[i]War is Natural Population Control!!!![/i]


The war is being fought against you, and you don't even know it buddy!


Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 11:34:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exposing Nick as a liar. (none / 0)
"Too bad its take more energy to make the coal-oil than what we get out of the process. One book that discussed the future prospects of oil talked about this coal-oil business, it said, and I am paraphrasing, "coal to oil conversion is only efficient in depleting coal resources twice as fast."

I'd like to point out to the forum that Nick has never had a basic course in physics, thermodynamics, or engineering, and yet here he is again, spouting off nonsense on subjects he is completely unfamilar with.

The guy is a Marxist Goofball, and nearly everything he posts is a lie.

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 04:47:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Id like to point out (none / 0)
every fucking moronic narrow minded unenlightened ideologically blinded excuse for logic that you have ever posted on this forum.

go away
your input is no longer needed  since you repeat the same ignorant shit over and over and over.


All Conservatives Are Liars- Mike Malloy

by Chinese Democracy on 05/26/2008 10:30:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
@ Mookie (none / 0)

About the coal issue, I want to clarify why this is a bad idea. My detractors may call me a "liar" and yet in a comic twist of fate do not read their own sources. From the wikipedia source that was nicely provided to us by KenTX:

 "One issue that has yet to be addressed in the emerging discussion about large-scale development of synthetic fuels is the increase in primary energy use and carbon emissionsinherent in conversion of gaseous and solid carbon sources to a usable liquid form, assuming the energy used to drive the process comes from burning coal or hydrocarbon fuels. Recent work by the United States' National Renewable Energy Laboratory indicates that full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions for coal-based synfuels are nearly twice as high as their petroleum-based equivalent. Emissions of other pollutants are vastly increased as well, although many of these emissions can be captured during production."

 So, it all depends on what you value. The environment or profits...you can't have both with coal-oil processing. 

 

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 05:34:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
In addition... (none / 0)

If I am not wrong about physics, but, you cannot take out of something more than its original mass. Thus, if we convert all the coal to oil, we would have wasted more coal than we would have gotten out of the coal, thus a net loss of energy. Thus:

1 unit Coal does not = 1 unit of oil

It is physically impossible...but me and my lying ways with elementary science!

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 05:41:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
starting to learn (none / 0)
You are starting to learn a bit...You are correct that you loose some of the energy in the coal when you convert it to oil.  Why would you want to do such a "stupid" thing?  You are now ready for your first homework question grasshopper...

Homework question 1:

Try running your car or an airplane or a semi truck on coal.  If that fails try solar or wind power?  Report back to the group what you have learned...

by alphasigmookie on 05/26/2008 11:08:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey (none / 0)
Do you really I am going to respond to someone who pretends to be smart enough to be patronizing to me? Anyways...get over yourself! 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 11:37:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's like debating an infant (none / 0)
If a barrel of oil reaches $200/bbl, while a ton of coal costs a measly $100, then it becomes less important how much octane (and other isomers) can be synthesized from coal relative to oil. At some point (which we've probably already reached) coal synfuels become economically viable.

If oil disappears from the planet, and the U.S. is running electricity on nuclear and cars on synfuels, America will rule the world.

Then we can dominate Uruguay, Canada, and other places where Marxists live.
barrel of oil


"Put this in the tank of your car and get the hell out of here you tree hugging hippies!"
ton of coal

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 10:21:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good Mookie! (none / 0)
That's a great plan!

I thought you were going to forget about coal synfuel, but you even added that.

If the world is really running out of oil, we are in perfect position to power  the entire electrical grid from nuclear, and all internal combustion engines from coal. This would give the U.S. a HUGE economic advantage over the rest of the world for 100 years or more. Guys like Nick just can't understand the concept.

However, I deviate only slightly from your plan in that I think that nuclear and coal synfuels should be brought on more slowly. I want to use up all of the dinosaur juice in the Middle East and Russia and Venezuela before we start consuming our coal and uranium.

I want America to rule the world. 

by KenTX on 05/26/2008 04:05:36 PM EST

A KenTX endorsement (none / 0)
Is NEVER a good thing...

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 04:13:32 PM EST

I have a couple of quibbles (none / 0)

If we produce our last reserves as fast as we can by "opening up" all locations, then we will consume them very rapidly, because the throttle is wide open.  There needs to be control, very tight control on the rate that we do this.  Petroleum provides a lot more than simple energy.  We've got to be very careful with remaining domestic reserves.  Higher prices will fix the conservation problem, but I'm guessing it will take $8.00 gas before we see people do what really needs to be done.   I would be in favor of exploratory drilling, but it would have to be done in such a way that we don't simply burn through the last domestic reserves available to us.

We have to reach a point where we are no longer guzzling fuel before we produce our last reserves.

by bfaul on 05/26/2008 07:26:15 PM EST

long time (none / 0)
opening up does not equate to fast depletion.  It takes a long time to fully explore and ramp up production in a new area.  You have to do things like bring in drilling rigs and build pipelines.  The wells themselves usually last for 10-20 years if not longer.  Starting now means we might start seeing oil from these areas in 7-10 years with peak production not occuring for 15-20 years.  After that we'd still have the long tail of production long into the future for use in higher value products like plastics. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/26/2008 08:27:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Long Time? (none / 0)

So what if it takes a "long time" the point he is making is that, this is a limited resource and we use petroleum for other more important things (plastics), and once this non-renewable resource is gone what do we do? What you are illogically proposing is to literally burn this scarce resource, losing it for eternity...merely postponing the inevitable collapse. So...answer bfaul's point, not some cheap technical point. 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/26/2008 11:41:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yes (none / 0)
Oil will probably only be viable as a fuel for another 30-40 years.  It will slowly be replaced by other energy sources as the price increases due to depletion.  The oil that is left after it is no longer used for fuel will be plenty for production of plastics and specialty chemicals.  Those uses also will eventually fade as biotechnology allows substitution for feedstocks. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/27/2008 12:32:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It isn't that easy (none / 0)

"It will slowly be replaced by other energy sources as the price increases due to depletion."

I remember this little cartoon where a physicist is doing a long equation and in the middle of the equation is the phrase "then a miracle occurs".  Another scientist is pointing to that phrase and advising him "I think you need to be more specific here".

"Other energy sources" is that phrase in your paragraph above.  Try running a tugboat or ocean going freighter without fossil fuel.  There is currently nothing that will replace it.  There is nothing on the horizon that will replace it either.  For heavy work fossil fuel is basically all there is.  I don't know if it's even possible to generate enough biodiesel to run these kinds of huge machines.

My point isn't to discourage, because I think a plan similar to what you're descibing is just the ticket, but we absolutely have to start conserving as a national priority.  We have to throttle down before we dig into our last reserves. 

by bfaul on 05/27/2008 09:46:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The throttle (none / 0)
This is okay.  What we need is a "last big push."  Opening the throttle with additional drilling will assist in this endeavor.  Use the oil, frantically work on alternative energy solutions at the same time.

The problem with both sides of the aisle is that each things that all issues are either-or, black-and-white propositions.  We need "both-and," not "either-or," if we are to wean ourselves for good off fossil fuels.

by jarett on 05/27/2008 12:10:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jarett gets it (none / 0)
He realizes that you need oil to mine silicon for making solar pannels.  He understands that you need trucks run on diesel to transport wind turbines.  He knows the advanced lithium ion batteries used for electric vehicles will not be made using solar power.  We have a narrow window to ween the entire global economy off of dirty, depleting fossil fuels and we'll have to burn through a lot of them to get there.  The alternative is war and/or large scale collapse of civilization. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/27/2008 12:28:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Mookie's plan works. (none / 0)
I want to drill for American oil so we can quit spending $2 trillion per year on imported oil and gasoline.

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 12:39:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken (none / 0)

stop being a child. There is obviously an adult conversation here so stick with it.

"I want to drill for American oil so we can quit spending $2 trillion per year on imported oil and gasoline." 

What you want is irrelevant.

One of the main focuses of this conversation is that the large oil reserves on this planet (especially in our country) are getting harder and more expensive to get to. Slant drilling, shale oil, liquefied coal, offshore drilling, new refineries are all very expensive ventures for the oil companies and they would rather take the cheap and easy route by making their profits of of the 2 trillion dollar imports than take a hit on big domestic investments.

That is capitalism an fine with me but we have to look out for our own asses or we will get run over.

I know you understand all these thing so if you are going to act like a child than I am sure there is somewhere else here that you can make a "600 foreign fighter" post if you are that bored.

by z1p101 on 05/27/2008 01:39:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
fish in a barrel (none / 0)
"Oil companies..would rather take the cheap and easy route by making their profits of of the 2 trillion dollar imports than take a hit on big domestic investments. That is capitalism is fine with me but we have to look out for our own asses or we will get run over."
Capitalism is not fine with many Democrats. Here's a recent exchange between Maxine Waters (D, CA) and the CEO of Shell Oil.

The Shell guy wants to drill for oil in America. Maxine replies that she wants to nationalize the oil industry.

Your posts are too easy to defeat. But I enjoy doing it.

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 03:08:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
LOL (none / 0)

Nice you tube clip Ken.

Thanks for prooving my point. 

by z1p101 on 05/27/2008 06:54:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0)

Let me deal with this. Ken linked to a chopped up you tube Fox report of a heated discussion about price fixing. The "shell guy" was complaining about US drilling being restricted and that explains the high gas prices. So my question to Ken is where does he want to drill that Democrats are blocking that will make this huge difference? Let's look at Ken's favorite spots.

1. ANWR. Thanks to Ken's links I have learned that at current US consumption there is only 300 to 600 days worth of oil there. Not going to make a dent in  gas prices anytime soon.

2. Drilling of the coast of Florida and California. Like I pointed out in this post, Republicans are blocking that idea just as hard as any Democrat. When wealthy beach front property owners hear that someone wants to set up an oil drilling rig a few hundred miles outside their beautiful back yard they flip out and call their representatives. When people like Mel Gibson and George Steinbrenner get on the phone and say "not in my back yard", politicians like Jeb Bush, Mel Martinez and Arnold Schwarzenegger are more than happy to appease them. Democrat or Republican doesn't matter.

3. Alaska offshore. I don't feel like looking for Ken's link where that one was explained but what it is basically this. It is expensive to drill there and you come up with a lot of blanks. The dangers from the weather and the winter ice flows are a high risk proposition for the off shore rigs. The main fishing lobby (which is just as powerful as the oil lobby) in Alaska does not like the idea of an "accident" destroying the king crab season for 10 or more years. Alaska is a red state.

4. Bakken Formation. Since Ken decided to discuss this I did a 15 minute research on it. What I came up with was articles like this.  I can't vouch for the source but ti is a recurring theme. The theme is that yes there is a lot of oil there but it is an expensive PITA to get out of the ground. There are a few "hot spots" but oil companies are generally not interested at this time.

My original point was that yes there is still a lot of oil out there but it is getting increasingly more expensive to access.

So Ken, explain to me where Democrats are the cause of these high fuel prices and please leave out your usual non sequiturs. Please try to be an adult this time.

by z1p101 on 05/28/2008 02:32:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow! This is a great campaign issue! (none / 0)
“So my question to Ken is where does he want to drill that Democrats are blocking that will make this huge difference?”

Here’s an idea. Rather than import $2 trillion per year worth of oil and gasoline, let’s drill and produce our own oil and refine our own gasoline.

It will create millions of high paying jobs for Americans.

It will help balance the trade deficit when we stop importing oil.

It will more than balance the budget deficit when the government shares in the trillions of dollars of oil produced on federal land.

It will reduce our dependence on Middle East oil.

But nationwide, Democrats are doing everything possible to prevent America from taking control of our own destiny.

Alaska
New Mexico
California
Louisiana
Colorado
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Gulf of Mexico
Wyoming
Michigan

Barack Obama has lead Democrats in Congress in trying to destroy the American economy.
Democrats hate drilling
Democrats hate drilling
Democrats hate drilling
Democrats hate drilling

by KenTX on 05/28/2008 03:23:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hint (none / 0)

Before I go to sleep tonight let me let you in on a little secret that Republicans used to understand.

All politics is local. Then look through your

Alaska
New Mexico
California
Louisiana
Colorado
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Gulf of Mexico
Wyoming
Michigan

links. Then think about the special elections recently.

Once again Ken, thanks for avoiding the question and thanks for playing. 

by z1p101 on 05/28/2008 03:50:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
If (none / 0)
If oil were taken from private hands, something like this might be possible, but not in the current capitalist economy. Do you really think it is the right time for this "push"?  Or would people just get rich and be lazy about developing alternatives?  People are biologically selfish and short-sighted.

by desertpear on 05/27/2008 12:42:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're right about one thing (none / 0)
This has to be legislated.  The drilling has to come hand in hand with BIG incentives for energy companies that really innovate with renewables.

by jarett on 05/27/2008 01:07:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Responses (none / 0)

"It will slowly be replaced by other energy sources as the price increases due to depletion.  The oil that is left after it is no longer used for fuel will be plenty for production of plastics and specialty chemicals."


If you cannot see the inherent contradiction in those two sentences, what can I say? 


"This is okay.  What we need is a "last big push."  Opening the throttle with additional drilling will assist in this endeavor.  Use the oil, frantically work on alternative energy solutions at the same time."


This is the problem, this "last big push" needs a government coordinating it to happen. Do you think the Manhattan Project was done by private enterprise? Something on the scale and magnitude of this endeavor needs a strong state intervention. As long as profit is the operating assumption of this system of change, nothing will change. As the price of oil goes up and consumption rises, stagnates, or decreases slower than the increase in oil prices, there will no change.


"We have a narrow window to ween the entire global economy off of dirty, depleting fossil fuels and we'll have to burn through a lot of them to get there.  The alternative is war and/or large scale collapse of civilization. "


Where have I said differently? What I am saying is, let us use the resource wisely. If Fatty McSoccermom goes and picks up her kids in her Humvee, or goes to the corner store to buy a bottle of water in her Humvee, is this a appropriate use of resources? There mere fact that a Humvee is allowed to be produced is a crime unto itself. Nothing can change unless American's accept that their lifestyles are UNSUSTAINABLE.


I don't think you get it, you are bleating about more and more production, this is NOT the issue, why? Because the economy is STRUCTURED in a certain way. Understand what STRUCTURE means? The US economy in particular was built around the assumption of endless cheap oil, i.e. suburbia, interstate system, lack of public transport, etc. In order to change and allow for the fuels that you rightly suggest that have to be used to develop the new technologies, due to dwindling supply the US will have to radically change the way its structured. Or expect many more Iraq's. This is only LOGICAL, 1+1=2...its elementary. 


"That is capitalism an fine with me but we have to look out for our own asses or we will get run over."


All I can say is don't let the door hit you in the ass when u kicked into the poor house. 


"If oil were taken from private hands, something like this might be possible, but not in the current capitalist economy."


God thank you, someone who gets it! Thank you desertpear.


Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/27/2008 02:09:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Pax Americana (none / 0)
"If Fatty McSoccermom goes and picks up her kids in her Humvee, or goes to the corner store to buy a bottle of water in her Humvee, is this a appropriate use of resources?"

It is perfect use of resources if the objective is American hegemony. We should use up all the oil in Iran and Venezuela and Russia. We should help the price of oil reach $500/bbl, so that its no longer economically viable as a fuel.

Then we should run our cars on coal synfuel, and our electricity on nuclear for 200 years. All the while, the economies of South America, Russia, Europe will become subservient to the American Hegemon.

Then we can hunt down every remaining socialist and Marxist and ship them off to concentration camps. How does that sound, Nick?

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 03:31:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you and bobo (none / 0)
Sound like 12-year-old boys.  Nick sounds like a rational human being willing to have an adult discussion. 

by desertpear on 05/27/2008 12:37:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
education (none / 0)
on depletion:

you seem to not understand how resource depletion works.  Oil is not a big pool in the ground that you can suck out of at whatever rate you want until its gone.  At all scales (well, feild, nation, world) oil production generally follows a gausian or bell curve.  I will assume you know what that looks like, if not google it.  Right now from a global perspective we are reaching the top of that curve.  This means that going out into the near future there will be less oil avaliable than there was the year before.  At some point along the backslope of the curve oil will no longer be vialble as a fuel source due to price increases or substitution.  Throughout this process the remaing oil is rationed by price (or bullets). 

On economic incentives:

Rising prices provide economic incentives for soccer moms to not drive hummers.  The prices, along with the taxes I proposed make it less attractive to burn fossil fuels willy-nilly and people start to think more critically about their consumption.  This method tends to work much better than having know it all 22 year olds or even worse the government telling people how they can and cannot live.  Remember that many of the humvee driving soccer moms have husbands with .357 magnums and they dont' take kindly to being told what to do(I realize your solution to this problem would be to take away their guns too, but that's another story).  By using price as a lever you push people to change while allowing them to think it was their own idea. 

Why production?

The reason we need to continue to maximize production is that the back slope of the supply curve is likely to be fairly steep.  If it is too steep and oil depletes faster than we can change the structure of our economy and ramp up subsitutes we are in trouble.  I realize that the complete collapse of the US economy is a liberal wet dream, but it is unlikely that we will go down without a fight.  It also means that people will REALLY not give a shit about global warming or the environment (which believe it or not I do). 

by alphasigmookie on 05/27/2008 01:55:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yes (none / 0)
You have some good points here.  I just disagree that we are at the point of needing to maximize production at this time.  In my opinion, the recent price increase seems more like a much-needed correction than a dire emergency needing to be remedied.  If gasoline prices are lowered again, it will only lead to continuation of our current wasteful ways.  Even if only those in the oil business are profiting at the moment, it is forcing Americans to rethink their life styles in terms of consumption.  We need stimulus to prepare for the future.  I will fight hard against drilling in ANWR while my neighbor is still driving his humvee.

by desertpear on 05/27/2008 02:56:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
what (none / 0)
I realize that the complete collapse of the US economy is a liberal wet dream

In whose imagination?  Ken's?

by jarett on 05/27/2008 04:25:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
not all liberals (none / 0)
sorry jarrett, you're cool.  Unfortunatly many far left liberals/deep greens can't wait for the end of the "american dream".  They veiw it as a sin against nature that must be corrected and the more pain and punishment that occurs the better (serves those evil fools right for buying SUV's in the first place!)  I have recently read books by Richard Heinberg and James Kunstler, both seem to not be able to wait for the suburbs to crumble along with strong central government and globalized economies.  The envision relocalization with americans going back to more agrarian lifestyles (think living like the amish).  There is certainly a non-zero probability that this will occur, however they seem to be cheerleading such a change and fight any technology or policy that might lead to any future but this one (nuclear, advanced drilling, coal to liquids, carbon sequestration, biofuel s, etc.).  Our friend Nick seems to fall closer to these folks unfortunatly. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/27/2008 11:08:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am too rational (none / 0)
to wish anything, I just see the American way of life is unsustainable. It will end, the only question is how? With environmental and societal destruction, or through planning and rationalization of our resources outside of a profit-based economy. You I would argue want to see America collapse in an orgy of fire because you are only continuing t he same policies and logic that got the US into this mess in the first place. Ignorance is bliss...

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/27/2008 11:32:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
enlighten me (none / 0)
I have been doing all the teaching lately, please help me understand this concept:

"through planning and rationalization of our resources outside of a profit-based economy"

How exactly does that work?

by alphasigmookie on 05/27/2008 11:50:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
True (none / 0)

 

Its called nationalization of oil and gas resources, good examples of highly efficient state-owned oil firms include, Petrobars, and Statoil. Of course I am not stupid, this will not happen in the US currently...but all I am saying is there are alternatives to the Exxon-Chevron-Conocco Phillips- oligopoly. If not that, highly regulated energy industry, and the break up again of these massive oil firms like they were after the anti-trust break up of Standard Oil, and to prevent future mergers as we have seen. Also mandating that autos have a certain mileage per gallon, if the HUMMER can reach these standards then I am all for them. I am not seeking to limit choice, rather forcing corporations to invest in new technologies, and not letting them dictate when do it. 


The other alternative is radical, which is taking profit out of the equation and planning the economy so as to use resources more efficiently. This planning would occur only in the "commanding heights" of the economy, so the petit bourgeoisie could still own their businesses and make profit. Through the use of modern techonology, this can be reasonably achieved

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/28/2008 11:49:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Mookie, (none / 0)
I think you missed out on some of Nick's best work. He despises American capitalism, American neoliberalism, American exceptionalism, American hegemony.

In short, Nick despises America. Period.

Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 11:44:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Despise" is kind of a strong word (none / 0)
Capitalism?  Fine by me.
Neoliberalism?  Okay to a point.
Exceptionalism?  I 100% believe in this.
Hegemony?  Hell F'in No.  Too expensive and too useless.  We should be leading by example, not at the barrel of a gun.

by jarett on 05/28/2008 01:21:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Its called logic (none / 0)

"on depletion:"


Yes I am very much aware about the bell curved nature of oil production, that is the peak oil theory is premised on. Please, I would strongly suggest you stop trying to be patronizing bc I know what I am talking about also, and logically I am clearly superior. What you said is once the resource is depleted then went on to suggest that we use this depleted resource. Not my fault you do not use correct terminology. As for your reply, what does it answer? All you do here is try to be a teacher, what is the POINT of what you are writing? 


"On economic incentives:"


People are tough to kick out of their old habits, and chances are people who are used to a SUV lifestyle will agitate for policies that will allow them to continue that lifestlye. I know I may be a 22 year old know it all, but thats bc I actually study...thats my life's work-I get paid to do it ;). So these fat cows and their gun toting husbands will vote for a right-wing populist government, giving more subsidies, protectionism, jingoism, etc to secure oil supplies to the US...sounds like your plan! Your plan does not fool me, nor does your undeserved patronizing attitude. Economics is not the be all end all of this scenario get over it. 


"Why production?"


Because you want oil companies to make ever more money at the expense of the common American. If you cared about global warming and the environment, you would NOT advocate the policies you are...your all talk. Get some logic in your arguments next time! Thanks.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/27/2008 04:47:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Nick is always wrong. (none / 0)
"People are tough to kick out of their old habits, and chances are people who are used to a SUV lifestyle will agitate for policies that will allow them to continue that lifestlye."

Let's see if Nick is capable of posting accurate information for the first time ever in this forum. This CNN link will tell us if he can finally get something correct.

Nope. He's still batting 0.000 

by KenTX on 05/27/2008 05:17:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Shh Ken (none / 0)

Intelligent people are having a conversation.

I understand that Nick has absolutely no understanding about Americans and the way we think but the different perspective is interesting.

From your comment it is obvious that you either did not understand his point (damn reading disability) or you are just being obnoxious again.

by z1p101 on 05/27/2008 08:08:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mutually exclusive? (none / 0)

From your comment it is obvious that you either did not understand his point (damn reading disability) or you are just being obnoxious again.

Can't it be both? By the way, I also have no understanding about how Americans think, for the record.

by OneHitKill on 05/27/2008 10:48:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
response (none / 0)
Learn to read:

I realize that a common strategy on forums is to attempt to derail a conversation by pointing out grammer or minute logical inconsistencies.  Unfortunatly when you do so please ensure that you are correct.  I never used the word depleted, I used the word depletion, which is in fact a process not an end state.  for example...the process of depletion leads to higher prices.  Reread the post with this new knowledge and it will make more sense.  I replyed the way I did as I thought you understood the difference.  I was trying to be a teacher as I thought you actually had potential and were fairly smart, just a little ignorant on this issue, it seems I may have been wasting my time. 

My last lesson:

just because you read a book that said economist are stupid and economics is bullshit doesn't make it true.  Prices affect behavior like it or not. 

Global Warming is not the only problem:

If I was all talk I would not have given up a promising research position to take a 60% pay cut to study sustainability.  Global warming is certainly a problem, but we have a large systems problem of how we transition a global economy with 2+ billion people trying to pull themselves out of abject poverty away from dirty and rapidly depleting fossil fuels to expensive and non-ideal alternatives without the whole mess going to shit.  My plan had 13 different proposals and all of them will be needed, along with likely more in the future to even come close to acheiving that goal.  If we fail of course global warming will be the least of our worries.  

by alphasigmookie on 05/27/2008 11:44:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sounds Good (none / 0)

I like the plan except for two of the points:

  • Renew solar and wind tax breaks for 20 years with higher initial values but slowly reduce over time.
Denmark has proven long ago that wind and solar can be base-load energy generators. So what reason is there to lower tax breaks over time instead of over results? I'd go further and provide subsidies.
  • Take 90% of the funding currently going to fuel cells and hydrogen and divert it to battery and ultracapaciter research.
Why reduce funding for a promising technology instead of just funding both? Slice up the defense hog and starting using some of that money on something a lot smarter than bombs.

 

by Randomambusher on 05/27/2008 07:26:16 AM EST

hydrogen boondoggle (none / 0)
becaue hydrogen is way overhyped and a distraction from real solutions.  We also spend WAY too much on it compared to other technologies.  Hydrogen is like a battery that loses 60+ percent of its charge instantly.  We can keep developing it to a degree, but in the time frame we're talking 10-20 years, battery tech is far more promising.  If you are interested I can go into more details about the thermodynamic losses at each stage of the process for hydrogen compared to electric vehicles. 

by alphasigmookie on 05/27/2008 01:34:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Development (none / 0)

I don't think we should give up the long-term in favour of the medium-term.

Like I said, develop both. Hydrogen seems like a pointless venture now, but so does nuclear fussion and a host of other technologies we're dumping money into.

Working on this technology gives us a chance to solve the energy crisis once and for all.

by Randomambusher on 05/27/2008 03:25:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
another energy source (none / 0)

Wave power is also being researched at this time, for those interested in alternatives to fossil fuels.

wikipedia on wave energy 

by desertpear on 05/27/2008 12:35:42 PM EST

one more link (none / 0)

If anyone is interested in following research developments on the alternative energy front, bookmark this site for daily updates--it's an amazing resource.
Energy News 

by desertpear on 05/27/2008 03:30:36 PM EST

Mookie's Energy Plan | 64 comments (64 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: