So, let's talk energy policies!

senorpogo said:
There was an article in today's NYT about Obama buddying up with the ethanol lobby.

Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol



Disappointing. Why do political candidates always have to be kind of right and kind of wrong? Why can't one be all right and the other be all wrong?
Click to expand...
It is dissapointing. Politics as usual.

It's clear to me that subsidies should be removed and we should develop biomass fuel. If this means an easy ethanol from cellulose, fine.

I sat in a talk by a guy who does consulting for oil companies about switching to 10% ethanol across the country. His main point is that despite the investment into distribution (you can't pump 10%ethanol gas through the piplines), you can make more hand over fist...primarily because of the subsidies.

ETA: Funny enough, due to the pumping problems of ethanol, there is a cottage industry in having satallite ethanol production facilities for the blending before tanker transport.


what happened to the change?
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
His main point is that despite the investment into distribution (you can't pump 10%ethanol gas through the piplines), you can make more hand over fist...primarily because of the subsidies.
Click to expand...

The way I like to think about it- a two million dollar subsidy to burn one million dollars will still net you a cool million.

What's odd about our ethanol policy is that there are reasons for both sides of the aisles to oppose it. Environmentalist? Support a more productive bio-fuel. Small government type? Oppose any subsidy. Bleeding heart? People starve while we make fuel. Energy independence crowd? Back nuclear power.

On paper it seems like such a loser to me. Yet, like the Rays, there it is. In it to win it. Go figure.
 
As much as I would like to take a steaming dump on the junior Senator, he did need to win Iowa to turn the race on its head. His selling of his soul to the ethanol lobby might turn out to be very temporary when he takes the oath of office.

However, that is beyond the realm of skeptical inquiry since its non obvious versus the evidence otherwise and it requires being able to read his mind.
 
senorpogo said:
The way I like to think about it- a two million dollar subsidy to burn one million dollars will still net you a cool million.
Click to expand...
true, but the point being that even without the subsidies, the current gas price has made 10% ethanol profitable alone. All the subsidies are doing are further increasing the profits providing no additional benefit for the american consumer.

BTW, during the guy's talk, he mentioned how everyone expects the subsidies to end, they are just trying to make as much money until then.
 
Here's the big thing. We want cars to go from oil based to grid based power. Batteries and Hydro Cells mean the conversion takes place at your local power plant.

McCain wants states to decide whether they want to allow coastal drilling.
More nuclear plants to provide grid power in the long term.
Innovation and invention in electric car power supplies.
No more ethanol subsidies.
Emission standards.

Obama just keeps stopping on each point and saying "no, what we need is a comprehensive energy plan". As if he missed all the other points already and thinks the one he's hearing now isn't part of a plan.

Obama is not showing leadership on this. He's blanketly opposed to coastal drilling because he doesn't think it will help. Well, so the hell what? What if it doesn't help? What did we lose? He acts like a luddite about nuclear energy. And the worst sin is that he supports ethanol subsidies which are breaking the backs of the poor by increasing food and gas prices.

He doesn't get it and he's supposed to be the smart one. Beam me up Mr. Speaker because Junior Mint needs to have an "epiphany" about energy policy where he pulls a complete 180. His ambiguous "manhattan project" just smells like pork. When November comes, blue collar democrats will care more about their food and gas bills than having gay marriages. Progressive social issues won't win the election when milk reaches 5 bucks a gallon.

There simply isn't a way to be even handed on this subject. I know BenBurch and others are having problems reconciling their support of Obama with his energy policies which sound like the same ones that haven't worked for years. Not finding more domestic supply, blocking nuclear, and demonizing the car companies doesn't work. It's been tried. Repeatedly.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
  • So McCain wants to lift the ban on off shore drilling. Obama doesn't.
Click to expand...


  • The question that the media has failed to answer: So what is this offshore drilling that is supposedly banned?

    Texas and Louisiana - where all the lower 48 offshore oil is - are drilling away. Alaska - where all the frozen north offshore oil is - is gearing up to drill away. As far as I know, Oregon and Maine and Noo York and Georgia don't have squat offshore. California has a little bit of high sulfur, tarry goo left offshore and the state government doesn't want drilling for this nasty stuff and I doubt the oil companies want to spend their money on it.

    So what realistically productive areas are specifically banned from drilling?
 
Last edited:
Barack Obama has a nifty fact sheet on his energy policy.

corplinx said:
Here's the big thing. We want cars to go from oil based to grid based power. Batteries and Hydro Cells mean the conversion takes place at your local power plant.

McCain wants states to decide whether they want to allow coastal drilling.
More nuclear plants to provide grid power in the long term.
Innovation and invention in electric car power supplies.
No more ethanol subsidies.
Emission standards.

Obama just keeps stopping on each point and saying "no, what we need is a comprehensive energy plan". As if he missed all the other points already and thinks the one he's hearing now isn't part of a plan.

Obama is not showing leadership on this. He's blanketly opposed to coastal drilling because he doesn't think it will help. Well, so the hell what? What if it doesn't help? What did we lose? He acts like a luddite about nuclear energy. And the worst sin is that he supports ethanol subsidies which are breaking the backs of the poor by increasing food and gas prices.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Barack Obama supports nuclear power, he just stresses that there needs to be more efforts to keep it safe, which seems entirely reasonable. He supports increased fuel standards. "Innovation and invention in electric car power supplies" sounds vague, but it seems to be covered by increased research. Although yeah, ethanol subsidies are dumb.

Trying to lower energy prices from the supply side is not a particularly feasible strategy. It doesn't work in the long run because there's only so much oil in the ground, and it doesn't really work in the short run either because it takes a while for oil rigs to get set up. Additionally, in that doughy middle run, prices don't get lowered by a ton anyway since there's only so much oil in a lot of these situations. I don't think the costs are really that high so I don't see a problem with letting oil companies drill, but failing to do so is not showing leadership. Although raising supply should not be ruled out of hand, decreasing demand is the most efficient way to lower energy prices, and simultaneously serving the environment. (Additionally, increasing oil supplies might have a negative effect since if people expect the government to be able to conjure up more oil, they will be less inclined to switch to more energy efficient ways of living, thus raising demand and dampening the effect.)
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
Although, I'm not fully convinced of the advantage of off shore oil drilling. Does it provide a sizable enough oil supply to greatly reduce oil costs? It really seems like a bandaid fix to a crack in the dam.
Click to expand...

It is not a panacea but the age of huge oil finds like Ghawar are probably behind us. I say every little bit helps at this point. More oil drilling, alternative energy sources and conservation will all work together to help us through our energy problems IMO. No single answer will solve the problem by itself.
 
UserGoogol said:
What are you talking about? Barack Obama supports nuclear power, he just stresses that there needs to be more efforts to keep it safe,
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, versus all that unsafe nuclear power. That's not triangulating on the issue at all.
 
corplinx said:
Oh yeah, versus all that unsafe nuclear power. That's not triangulating on the issue at all.
Click to expand...

I have no doubts that Obama is trying to have his cake and eat it too, but the position he's triangulating on does seem rather sensible.

that energy fact sheet said:
Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.

To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R – IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority.

Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.
Click to expand...
 
UserGoogol said:
What are you talking about? Barack Obama supports nuclear power, he just stresses that there needs to be more efforts to keep it safe, which seems entirely reasonable. He supports increased fuel standards.
Click to expand...

What is Obama's actual policy about investing in new nuclear plants? All that's mentioned in his energy fact sheet involves making nuclear power safer. I checked his site and googled around, but couldn't find anything either. All of his quotes that I came across seemed skeptical (or outright critical) of nuclear power. Anyone know of a place with a more detailed position?
 
senorpogo said:
What is Obama's actual policy about investing in new nuclear plants? All that's mentioned in his energy fact sheet involves making nuclear power safer. I checked his site and googled around, but couldn't find anything either. All of his quotes that I came across seemed skeptical (or outright critical) of nuclear power. Anyone know of a place with a more detailed position?
Click to expand...

I have not seen one, although perhaps it's floating around somewhere. Obama's nuclear policy isn't ideal, (although I imagine he should be able to pull something more concrete eventually, and there's nothing inherently wrong with leaving plans for others to flesh out) but I just don't think he's a luddite.
 
Why do the US Nuclear Power plants need to be safer? They've never harmed anyone to date. It's like saying, I support hydro-power, but it needs to be made "safer" first.
 
Travis said:
Why do the US Nuclear Power plants need to be safer? They've never harmed anyone to date. It's like saying, I support hydro-power, but it needs to be made "safer" first.
Click to expand...

It's a way of postponing it so you don't actually have to do anything or make a decision. He "supports" it, but will do nothing to further actually utilizing it because it's not safe enough. And everyone's happy.
 
dirtywick said:
It's a way of postponing it so you don't actually have to do anything or make a decision. He "supports" it, but will do nothing to further actually utilizing it because it's not safe enough. And everyone's happy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it sounds like he is trying to placate both those who know that nuclear power has to be a part of our future energy policy and those that irrationally fear nuclear power.
 
Travis said:
Why do the US Nuclear Power plants need to be safer? They've never harmed anyone to date. It's like saying, I support hydro-power, but it needs to be made "safer" first.
Click to expand...


One of his big concerns is waste disposal. You don't typically have such long-term hazardous waste issues from other power sources. It's not a trivial issue if you're talking about a number of new plants.
 
corplinx said:
As much as I would like to take a steaming dump on the junior Senator, he did need to win Iowa to turn the race on its head. His selling of his soul to the ethanol lobby might turn out to be very temporary when he takes the oath of office.
Click to expand...

As you are wont to say, "That's change you can believe in."

My big problem with his ethanol policy is that ethanol sounds all fine and dandy, until you look at the science behind it. Then you realize that we are burning food for a just barely positive return on energy. The science says that our ethanol policy is bad.

That means its supporters either don't know that it's bad, in which case they can't do science, or they don't care because they represent a farm state and it shovels money to their constituents. Either way, it doesn't make me inclined to vote for someone who supports it. John McCain just got a lot better in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom