DescentBB

A couple of really interesting posts from over at Robert Rapier's blog -

The Need for a Real Domestic Alternative Energy Policy in the USA, and

Tis the Season for Oil Company Misinformation

Now why, oh why, can't Washington manage to have rational discussions of energy policy based on actual information as laid out in these articles? (yeah, yeah; I know why - Washington is a freak show; inmates running the asylum, etc. But I can dream, can't I?)

{bumpage}

Seriously??


Nobody wants to stand up for HuffPo and defend them against the claims made by Rapier in the second linked article?
Man, you libbies must be distracted or somethin'.

Isn't domestic investment usually called wasteful spending by you guys?

what's a 'libbie'?

On a serious note, Oil Companies are NOT, IMHO, the demon seed. On the other hand, we, and they, had best move more quickly to alternatives, because oil supplies have peaked. We are going to need petroleum for non-energy needs(plastics, industrial chemicals, etc), so burning the stuff off isn't going to serve the world well as supplies dwindle. As the writer of the second article noted, folks don't like to think about a life without oil. One writer who did try to look into a future with zero oil supply was Michael Moore, at the start of one of his books. His writing was funny, but the bleak possibilities are very real. This isn't, or shouldn't be about liberal or conservative, it should be about reality.

Zuruck wrote:Isn't domestic investment usually called wasteful spending by you guys?

If you call the "War on Drugs" as a investment, then yes. If you give credits and tax breaks to start up a business or entice business to come in, then no.

Yeah that's not really investment woodchip. That's called hoping for investment. Perhaps I misread the first article, but I pulled the usual argument that energy companies need subsidization because otherwise it's too expensive to build a plant. So in essence, taxpayers give the companies money to build things to make money off of us. That sounds like paying the school bully to beat you up on the playground.

The hardest thing to do these days is convince people about actual investment. When Eisenhower said he wanted a massive system of roads to connect the states and build national commerce, everyone asked the same questions: How long and how expensive? The highway system took over 40 years to complete and at some astronomical cost, but look at the benefits that it brought. Commerce amongst the states went up and the country became more culturally united. It didn't pay immediate dividends which is what everyone expects now. The US energy grid HAS to be modernized, but it won't bring immediate relief and that keeps the idiots out there from supporting it. Of course, the manipulation by companies like Enron certainly doesn't help when it comes to having a real discussion about energy. There are a few things in this world that I simply do not believe should be for profit. One is people's health, another is energy. Enron's concern back in the late 90s was not helping California avoid rolling blackouts, its goal was to make an extra buck and they did whatever they could to ensure that.

I wonder what the money spent on the wars could have done for the US energy grid.

good points all, Zuruck

Zuruck wrote:I wonder what the money spent on the wars could have done for the US energy grid.

Probably a drop in the bucket, considering what the cost of expanding the grid to include the future wind and solar farms will be.

Good defeatist thinking Spidey...a trillion dollars would be a little more than a drop in the bucket but at least it'd be something.

Nah, that’s not defeatist thinking…I for one am very much hoping we can get our ★■◆● together and create a working energy policy, for the future.

I just don’t see the wars having any affect, one way or another.

Your side bitches and moans that we're broke as a country and can't afford to do the maintenance here at home.

So war money = infrastructure money.

I could do an animation for you, would that make it easier for you to understand?

Getting things done in this country is a matter of political will, much more than money.

I happen to be a strong supporter of building infrastructure on an ongoing basis, what I object to…is how it’s used to bludgeon people every few years.

And try to keep up, I gave up the whole idea of “my side” years ago.

Zuruck wrote:Yeah that's not really investment woodchip. That's called hoping for investment. Perhaps I misread the first article, but I pulled the usual argument that energy companies need subsidization because otherwise it's too expensive to build a plant.

The problem with subsidizing energy companies for things like solar and wind farms is they are not very efficient ways to produce electricity. Zuruck, while your highway example is valid (prior to we had no interstate highway system and if I remember correctly the interstate was built as a means to rapidly deploy the military ), the energy grid is already in place. What we have now is a govt. that is regulating the coal fired plants out of existance (remember Obama's statement about making the coal fired plants so expensive to operate ? ), giving subsidies to inefficient means of producing electricity and on top of all that, the same govt. is pushing for the whole country to run on electric vehicles. Somehow I see problems here...don't you?

Yea I know what you're saying woodchip. This issue irritates me, both sides just piss into the wind and nothing gets done anywhere. The wind farms are nice, but what's the point if guys like John Kerry refuses to let them block his ocean view. Our steady supply of money to the Middle East for their lovely oil is what propped that whole part of the world up, I'd love to get off the juice and let that whole area crumble back into the 1300s. But crikey, I'm just some socialist-commie-animal-loving-antichristian-antiamerican-sociopathic-edgeinloving crazy person.