Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil: Page 2

Calendar Retailers Stack & Reach Custom Geometry Calculator (beta) More To Come...
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Search for (options)

Newsletter Signup

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil

1 2 3 4

View All

Monk

Jul 1, 08 20:05

Post #26 of 77 (415 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Matt--Don't get me wrong, personally, I am fine with the price of gas going through the roof. It will have to get a lot more expensive before I give a shit. It is the lower income people (i.e. Democrats) who will be taking it in the rear end--and those are the ones who deserve it. They got the representatives they deserved--Shut down the Hydroelectric Plant! Save the Snail Darters, Baby!

It may take a little while, but the "little people" you have conned all these years will be pulling people out of Congress and hanging them from lamposts. Why did you tie up drilling? Why did you block oil shale? Why have you blocked refineries? Those Democratic do-gooders are going to have to answer for it, and I'll be throwing candies to the children while their parents beat their elected Democrat representatives to death with baseball bats.

Meanwhile, you and your Marxists brothers can sit around and wonder what happened to your Utopia, and I'll blow cigar smike in your face. Nothing personal.

(This post was edited by Monk on Jul 1, 08 20:12)

JSA

Jul 1, 08 20:10

Post #27 of 77 (412 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [tim-mech] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Furthermore, man made climate change stands to make extinct huge numbers of birds and other animals so if renewable, non emitting power generation smokes a couple of bird brained individuals, but gets us off the greenhouse gas freight train, then I think that's the way to go.

I agree. My post was completely tongue-in-cheek (maybe I should have used pink). ;-p

_______________________________________________

"My better is better than your better." - LT, via Nike

The people who keep me moving:

TRANSITION - Get Moving!

Monk

Jul 1, 08 20:34

Post #28 of 77 (410 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Shale oil will take longer to get to market than offshore oil.

try again.

Yeah, but that wind shit is just around the corner. And power generation from ocean waves--stand back, baby--the savings from that will be on your next electric bill!

We might as well do nothing, cuz it won't help me at the pump tomorrow. I might as well tell my kid not to bother with college unless he start in September and have his four year degree by Thanksgiving. Not worth it if you can't have it right away. Lets just create a bunch of taxes without any idea what to do with the money--that will make Matt feel better--it won't accomplish shit, but it will make Matt feel better, and that's the important thing, how we "feel".

Tridiot

Jul 2, 08 5:36

Post #29 of 77 (398 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [Gozerman] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Just to note, quick Googling will produce a large number of articles and equally reputable economists (probably a few from Harvard) that clearly disprove his price speculator theory. (ever increasing demand, especially from China, has more to do with this; it's more of a supply/demand thing)

Gozerman

Jul 2, 08 6:51

Post #30 of 77 (380 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [Tridiot] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Maybe you didn't read his article, but his focus is on the behavior of producers, not speculators. He actually specifically mentions that this behavior is driven by expectations of increasing demands from China and elsewhere in the developing world. Saudi Arabia is capable of producing 11M barrels of oil today, but only pump about 9M. They obviously believe it is not to their benefit to supply the additional 2M barrels at this time, but would rather supply later at a higher price.

Tridiot

Jul 2, 08 6:58

Post #31 of 77 (375 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [Gozerman] [In reply to]	Can't Post

My apologies, my reading comprehension skills are clearly not up to snuff today.

I'll have to go find the article, that sounds interesting (and that Saudi Arabia is acting rationally in the economic environment).

MJuric

Jul 2, 08 8:51

Post #32 of 77 (338 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Our budget malaise has never been this dire so the need to make the changes has never been as prescient...we had balanced budgets back then...at least for the 8 years Clinton was President.

1986...not 1996. We had HUGE budget deficits in 86'

~Matt

MattinSF

Jul 2, 08 8:51

Post #33 of 77 (337 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [Tridiot] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Shale oil is a huge oil cartel boondoggle. Its only economically viable to produce if gasoline is up around $5.50-$6.00 a gallon. At that price it becomes more economical, not to mention friendly to the environment, to produce alternative renewable energy.

The cost of gas is going up every day as it becomes more expensive to find and refine and the cost of alternative energy is coming down as the technology gets better. The oil companies do not want any investment in alternative energy because when those lines cross and it becomes cheaper to produce than oil they are out of business.

The oil companies' worst nightmare is an off the grid house with solar panels that not only power that house but charges the electric car in the garage or powers the hydrogen fuel cell for the family vehicles. They have no skin in that game.

And please don't try and tell me that the oil companies are investing in alternative energy...its sorta in the same vein as the tobacco companies doing cancer research.
----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE is a plan that worked. CHANGE is a plan that worked. BELIEVE is a plan that worked.

MJuric

Jul 2, 08 8:55

Post #34 of 77 (336 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

What about coal?

~Matt

MattinSF

Jul 2, 08 9:01

Post #35 of 77 (333 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Well I'm not going back 23 years to find out why the Democratic caucus at that time supported the credits without a funding stream. Safe to say that its prudent policy today though don't you think?
----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE is a plan that worked. CHANGE is a plan that worked. BELIEVE is a plan that worked.

MattinSF

Jul 2, 08 9:05

Post #36 of 77 (330 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

What about coal?

~Matt

Have you ever been to Shanghai? If you want our air to look like their's then by all means burn coal to fuel electric cars.
----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE is a plan that worked. CHANGE is a plan that worked. BELIEVE is a plan that worked.

dave_w

Jul 2, 08 9:14

Post #37 of 77 (328 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

http://www.iht.com/...s/bxshale.php?page=1

New technology and discoveries effectively make the oft repeated line "we can't drill our way out of this" a lie. We can, the question is should we.

"It's all about self-esteem"

MJuric

Jul 2, 08 9:18

Post #38 of 77 (322 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Hardly an apples to apples comparison as Shanghi uses zero emissions control.

So if we can't drill for additional oil, can't use coal, do you have a problem with nuclear as well? If so exactly what do you propose we do for energy?

~Matt

MJuric

Jul 2, 08 9:21

Post #39 of 77 (321 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Sure it's a prudent policy today just as it was 23 years ago. My question is how does one blame the Republicans now for doing exactly what the Dems gladly did 23 years ago.

If 23 years ago the bill was more important than the revenue stream, why not today? I don't disagree it's a prudent policy just extremely disingenuous of you and others to suddenly say it "It's all the Reps fault".

~Matt

MattinSF

Jul 2, 08 9:49

Post #40 of 77 (302 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Not apples to apples maybe but apples to pears...pretty close. Coal is very dirty no matter how you splice it or dice it. We scrub our coal emissions unilke the Chinese, but even with the scrubbing its still a very polluting energy source and if we want to burn more and more of it to power our transit choices we will begin to look like China.

Fossil fuels are 19th and 20th century technology. Solar and wind are 21st century technology; not only are they relatively ubiquitous but they are 100% renewable and non polluting...what could be better?

The problem with solar and wind is that apart from the initial infrastructure costs there are no real opportunities for huge energy companies to make money. The energy comes right out of the sky that everyone has equal access to....thats why they don;t like it and why they stifle innovation and investment in alternative energy and why they have a well oiled (pun intended) propaganda machine telling the world that we can keep burning black stuff from the ground forever!!! and that wind and solar are for crazy kooky people who eat granola and wear hemp.
----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE is a plan that worked. CHANGE is a plan that worked. BELIEVE is a plan that worked.

MattinSF

Jul 2, 08 9:55

Post #41 of 77 (294 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Things have changed a lot in 23 years. Oil is a teensy weensy bit more expensive today than it was in 1986, we now know that burning fossil fuels is a really really bad thing to do, and we have been attacked by the very people who we buy this oil shit from and we are bogged down in a mindless war to try and get our hands on someone else's oil.

Dems can be excused 23 years ago for not seeing all that coming down the pike, Reps today have no excuses.
----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE is a plan that worked. CHANGE is a plan that worked. BELIEVE is a plan that worked.

MJuric

Jul 2, 08 10:01

Post #42 of 77 (291 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Coal is very dirty no matter how you splice it or dice it.

Agreed.

The problem with solar and wind is that apart from the initial infrastructure costs there are no real opportunities for huge energy companies to make money.

Actually that's not the problem. The problem is that at present solar and wind is only marginally economic even with current prices. Infrastructure is obviously a major hurdle.

Large corporations can, will and do make money off of solar and wind, mostly wind as it's more competitive at the moment. Not everyone wants to mess with putting up a wind mill or solar panels and will choose to stay on the grid. This is even more true in urban areas where there is no area for panels or mills.

The "Infrastructure" you mention is the real problem and the very reason why it is necessary to get other existing methods up and running. We simply do not have the capacity to get enough wind or solar up and running nor do we have developed vehicles ready to run purely on electric.

In short the problem is we are looking at a 20-30 year lag between today and having a large fleet of electric vehicles with enough solar/wind/etc to support it. This is in comparison to 10 years or less to get new oil and nuclear online. The in between years, years 10-20 would be used to transition from fossil to renewable.

Of course we have no one to blame but ourselves here as if we would have started a similar plan in the early 70's we would be well into the electric vehicle stage already.

In short I agree with you but I think you have an unrealistic view of time frame and necessity. Simply cutting off fossil fuel will not hasten renewable, but limit it, as we would end up going thru fairly massive economic retraction and suffer from lack of energy to develop and produce the new technology.

As has always been the case we use old technology to create new. Hand was used to develop steam, steam to develop fossil, fossil to develop electric etc etc. Only when the new technology is fully functional and implemented does the old technology die off, not before.

~Matt

MJuric

Jul 2, 08 10:09

Post #43 of 77 (289 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Oil is a teensy weensy bit more expensive today than it was in 1986

Not as much as one would think. Adjusted for inflation 1980 oil prices are about the same as they were in march of 08'. 1986 was significantly lower but again not as huge as one would think.

Dems can be excused 23 years ago for not seeing all that coming down the pike, Reps today have no excuses.

Well except reps are trying to block the bill as is, dems are trying to change the bill to be more "Fiscally responsible". As far as fiscal responsibility things haven't changed at all since 1986. Basically the Reps are saying keep it as it was and Dems are saying "Let's change it". None of this is about the bill or alternative energy research aspects of the bill but about "Tax credits".

The way I look at it today's Dems have no excuses for trying to alter the bill if indeed the really important issue is energy independence. In short the dems are placing "Fiscal responsibility" over "Energy independence" and the Reps are placing "Energy independence" over "Fiscal responsibility"

Shame on the Dems for blocking alternative energy :-)

~Matt

MJuric

Jul 2, 08 10:14

Post #44 of 77 (280 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I also don't understand your stance on this. The reps are proposing that the bill stand as is as a tax credit. this tax credit would provide more incentive to implement alternative energy. The Dems are trying to change that by saying in order for those credits to go thru we have to make cuts elsewhere.

I understand that this "Overall" is a sound policy, but why hold this bill, if indeed alternative energy is so important, until those cuts are made. Dems are in control of the house and senate and can make cuts anywhere anytime they want.

Just isn't cutting it for me.

~Matt

MattinSF

Jul 2, 08 10:15

Post #45 of 77 (279 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

We agree on where we need to be just on how and how fast we need to get there.

If we continue to allow the oil companies to dictate the course and speed we will be in big trouble, we will continue our sloth paced investment in alternative energy, we will drill and drill and drill until we can't drill anymore and then we'll drill another hole to stick our heads in for a few years and cry because all the oil is gone and we've suddenly become a 3rd world country.

At present solar and wind are marginally economic, but with the proper investment and improvements in the technology it will become a much more viable and economic energy source IF WE INVEST. And I disagree with your pessimistic prediction on solar panels in urban areas. With energy efficient buildings you can right now, today, build off the grid in the middle of San Francisco which is hardly a very sunny spot. The same can be done all over the country.

Google San Francisco PUC headquarters.
----------------------------------------------------------
HOPE is a plan that worked. CHANGE is a plan that worked. BELIEVE is a plan that worked.

MJuric

Jul 2, 08 10:22

Post #46 of 77 (276 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MattinSF] [In reply to]	Can't Post

With energy efficient buildings you can right now, today, build off the grid in the middle of San Francisco which is hardly a very sunny spot. The same can be done all over the country.

I'm not disagreeing that it can't be done, I'm disagreeing with your time frame. In order for this to take place it would basically mean every building in an urban area would have to be replaced with a new technology building. That's not going to happen in 10, or even 20 years.

Like I said the years 10-20 from now will be transition periods. Most buildings being put up in the next 3-5 years of any significance are already designed. It will be another 5-10 years before any type of majority of buildings are close to the building you refer to, which is only designed not built. It is also only providing 40% of it's total needs, not 100%.

~Matt

Edit to add: I'd also like to see an economic breakdown as to how "Profitable" this building would be in a commercial project. This is appears to be a "No cost considered" government project rather than a rental unit or rent for profit unit.

(This post was edited by MJuric on Jul 2, 08 10:24)

jryan

Jul 2, 08 10:30

Post #47 of 77 (271 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

"but why hold this bill"

Because it will make for some good ads against Republican senators the next 4 months.

MJuric

Jul 2, 08 10:32

Post #48 of 77 (268 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [jryan] [In reply to]	Can't Post

See...there ya go being all blatantly obvious and stuff :-) I was just trying to lead the horse to water...not make him drink.

~Matt

Dapper Dan

Jul 2, 08 10:44

Post #49 of 77 (261 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

And to generate enough energy with wind power to replace the current gasoline produced energy used in cars, you would have to have wind farms as large as entire states. What is the environmental impact of THAT?

jryan

Jul 2, 08 10:44

Post #50 of 77 (259 views)

Re: Republicans vote for more dependence on foreign oil [MJuric] [In reply to]	Can't Post

What? You thought Matt was going to say it at some point? We'll all have to get used to things like this for the next few months rather than progress on anything. Just like in '06 when fall rolled around and they started debating a flag burning amendment.

1 2 3 4

View All