If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   "Obama says he wants to 'transform' our energy economy and get it off coal and oil. [Those industries] employ millions of people and are efficient. Wind and solar energy... are costly and ...not competitive."   (foxnews.com) divider line 214
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1552 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2009 at 12:20 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-02 10:10:22 AM
Pfffft. More Faux News wharrgarbl.
 
2009-03-02 10:16:11 AM
"I like 'to' put random words...in 'quotes' [too]."
 
2009-03-02 10:18:06 AM
I believe we'll start moving away from the easy (but ugly) energy sources when we have absolutely no choice left. Until then everyone will just talk about it.
 
2009-03-02 10:19:19 AM
We need to keep the slave trade going.

IT IS INEXPENSIVE AND KEEPS PEOPLE WORKING!
 
2009-03-02 10:19:31 AM
Your model of efficiency doesn't take the externality of pollution into account.
 
2009-03-02 10:21:31 AM
tchamber: Pfffft. More Faux News wharrgarbl.

It's hard not to wharrgarbl a little when we're discussing energy. Wind and solar energy are unlikely to provide an energy grid for the entire country. I'd like to see more nuclear, which unfortunately is pretty expensive per kW/hr, but at least it doesn't pollute (except for Yucca Mountain) and is very long-term.
 
2009-03-02 10:21:39 AM
They are also non-renewable, destructive to the environment to pull out of the ground and make into fuel/energy, and to be honest, they are old. Solar, Wind, and the like are where we need to be headed. Clean, renewable, and no destructive. If we put the same money in to research those as do into fossil fuels, they would be more cost efficient.
 
2009-03-02 10:22:25 AM
Hey you know one of the most cost efficient ways to heat our homes subby? Burning coal! We should all go back to having coal stoves in our houses! After all, cost seems to be the only criteria you are concerned about.

www.eriding.net
 
2009-03-02 10:22:50 AM
I have a great idea! Let's just keep doing what we're doing until we destroy ourselves! Because it works, dammit!
 
2009-03-02 10:29:21 AM
Silly submitter. Reality doesn't matter as long as it makes us feel good and we believe it will work.

/rides off on his unicorn.
 
2009-03-02 10:29:57 AM
Jaboobinator: I have a great idea! Let's just keep doing what we're doing until we destroy ourselves! Because it works, dammit!

Hey, it's RELIABLY helped destroy us for generations. Reliability is important.

Now I have that lame-ass commercial from "Wag The Dog" playing in my head.... "You wouldn't switch horses in mid-stream, would you?"
 
2009-03-02 10:34:36 AM
I don't suppose they realize that more funding is needed to do more research so that alternative energy sources are more efficient. That's part of the goal.
 
2009-03-02 10:39:18 AM
"Rockefeller says he wants to 'transform' our energy economy and get it off whale oil. That industry employs millions of people and is efficient. Petroleum from the ground... is costly and ...not competitive."

Fox News, circa 1872
 
2009-03-02 10:39:52 AM
The Stealth Hippopotamus: Silly submitter. Reality doesn't matter as long as it makes us feel good and we believe it will work.

/rides off on his unicorn.


When you consider only 2 of many factors of a given course of action, that is not living in reality. But I suppose if you think you're riding on a unicorn no amount of reasonable discourse can help you.
 
2009-03-02 10:43:46 AM
Jaboobinator: I have a great idea! Let's just keep doing what we're doing until we destroy ourselves! Because it works, dammit!

Sell your car.
 
2009-03-02 10:46:28 AM
WaltzingMathilda: When you consider only 2 of many factors of a given course of action, that is not living in reality. But I suppose if you think you're riding on a unicorn no amount of reasonable discourse can help you.

Ok lets look at all of them:

1) kill off most of the planet and return to pre-industrial
2) just hope that it goes away
3) rely on just fossil fuels
4) rely on just "alt" energy
5) rely on fossil while developing alt energy
6) force people off fossil before alt energy is ready

Right now I think we are going with a 6 when 5 is a better plan.
 
2009-03-02 10:47:23 AM
Nuclear power. Come on, people, are we really that intimidated by something that doesn't scare the French? Three Mile Island was thirty years ago, and that was a catastrophe that was avoided, too boot. Chernobyl? Twenty years ago with substandard Soviet technology, more of a testament to the deplorable policies of the USSR than an indictment of nuclear energy as a whole. We've made a few technological advances since then.
 
2009-03-02 10:50:04 AM
The Stealth Hippopotamus: WaltzingMathilda: When you consider only 2 of many factors of a given course of action, that is not living in reality. But I suppose if you think you're riding on a unicorn no amount of reasonable discourse can help you.

Ok lets look at all of them:

1) kill off most of the planet and return to pre-industrial
2) just hope that it goes away
3) rely on just fossil fuels
4) rely on just "alt" energy
5) rely on fossil while developing alt energy
6) force people off fossil before alt energy is ready

Right now I think we are going with a 6 when 5 is a better plan.


I don't think that's true. I think 5 has been the plan all along. And I don't think fossil will even go away once alt is ready.
 
2009-03-02 10:51:57 AM
The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ok lets look at all of them:

1) kill off most of the planet and return to pre-industrial
2) just hope that it goes away
3) rely on just fossil fuels
4) rely on just "alt" energy
5) rely on fossil while developing alt energy
6) force people off fossil before alt energy is ready

Right now I think we are going with a 6 when 5 is a better plan.


right, but for much of alt energy, the only thing that is "not ready" is the uncompetitive price. and for the most part, this uncompetitive pricing is due to scale inefficiencies. so if the government can subsidize these industries until their production has hit a critical mass, they will become price competitive. is that a bad thing?
 
2009-03-02 10:57:02 AM
Dinki: Hey you know one of the most cost efficient ways to heat our homes subby? Burning coal! We should all go back to having coal stoves in our houses! After all, cost seems to be the only criteria you are concerned about.

I know you're being facetious, and I agree that there is no such thing as clean coal, however, if a green technology is not cost effective, then we probably shouldn't use it.

Economic systems are put in place in all societies to distribute resources, and if any scheme is too costly then it's not sustainable, even if that scheme is wind or solar.

Of course, to cut off research because we can't do it now, is basically the same as giving up on math after the first grade. And factored into the "Cost of coal" should be the human cost of coal miners, black lung, air pollution, etc. And the fact that nuclear would free up natural gas, so we could have a real alternative fuel in our gas tanks.
 
2009-03-02 11:01:32 AM
Thank BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN and goddamn Jackson Browne for where we're at now.

www.thewho.net

www.jrp-graphics.com

How soon we forget.
 
2009-03-02 11:05:15 AM
The Stealth Hippopotamus: 5) rely on fossil while developing alt energy
6) force people off fossil before alt energy is ready

Right now I think we are going with a 6 when 5 is a better plan.


The idea that alternative energy is somehow not ready for prime time is a nothing but petroleum industry FUD. Solar and Wind are both proven sources, that if given an equal playing field with fossil fuels (currently fossil fuel burning power plants and producers are heavily subsidized in the US) will be able to overshadow them in most areas of the country.

Other sources are currently ramping up to fill the gaps where wind and solar are not feasible. Vortex-induced vibration energy generation is the best source solution so far in testing to allow for power generation on slow rivers without damming, and on ocean currents.
 
2009-03-02 11:05:36 AM
DarthBrooks: Thank BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN and goddamn Jackson Browne for where we're at now.
...
How soon we forget.


I'm all for nuclear power, but that's like blaming Jane Fonda for losing us the Vietnam war. Also, the cultural backlash against nuclear power may have come partly from the preceding three decades of the government constantly telling people that the reds were going to nuke them at any moment.
 
2009-03-02 11:06:59 AM
thomps: right, but for much of alt energy, the only thing that is "not ready" is the uncompetitive price. and for the most part, this uncompetitive pricing is due to scale inefficiencies. so if the government can subsidize these industries until their production has hit a critical mass, they will become price competitive. is that a bad thing?

yes it is a bad thing. The fact that it is uncompetitive is a testament that it is not ready. Dont look at it as dollars see what the dollars stand for. Right now it takes more capital per unit of energy to produce wind, solar, and other green tech then it takes for fossil fuels. As of right now fossil is getting cleaner and cleaner. Take it from someone who lived in LA in the 80s the air is cleaner. However they will never be as clean as the other techs. It's just not possible. So lets develop these new techs but not at the price of wasted capital! Why force people to pay for something that is sub-par?

Or just go nuckluar for frack sake!
 
2009-03-02 11:12:17 AM
Code_Archeologist: currently fossil fuel burning power plants and producers are heavily subsidized in the US

An important point that shouldn't be hidden in parentheses.
 
2009-03-02 11:12:49 AM
Code_Archeologist: The idea that alternative energy is somehow not ready for prime time is a nothing but petroleum industry FUD. Solar and Wind are both proven sources, that if given an equal playing field with fossil fuels (currently fossil fuel burning power plants and producers are heavily subsidized in the US) will be able to overshadow them in most areas of the country.

Other sources are currently ramping up to fill the gaps where wind and solar are not feasible. Vortex-induced vibration energy generation is the best source solution so far in testing to allow for power generation on slow rivers without damming, and on ocean currents.


When you and T.Boone get it figured out I will be more than happy to let you hook it to my house. But don't ask for government regulation forcing me to do it. Beat the fossil fuels and I will cheer the day, but force me to change for no other reason but the government tells me to then it will be a very sad day.
 
2009-03-02 11:13:41 AM
If we don't invest in doing serious research into how we can make solar, wind, biomass, etc. into legitimate large-scale energy sources I think it's very safe to say that the Chinese and Indians are.

Yes, this nation is primarily powered by coal and oil. To count on this nation being powered by coal and oil forever is to be the kind of person who complained that the Model T was having a negative impact on the horseshoe industry.

We should be building nuclear plants as fast as the concrete will cure, and we should be supporting alternative energy research with grants and tax credits. There's no point in crying about the lack of an electric car if that car's batteries would just end up being charged by an oil-fired power plant in the long run.
 
2009-03-02 11:14:43 AM
The Stealth Hippopotamus: So lets develop these new techs but not at the price of wasted capital! Why force people to pay for something that is sub-par?

Or just go nuckluar for frack sake!


i've got absolutely no problem with building new nuclear plants. my point was that many alternative sources can become competitive if they are built at a large scale (to offset r&d and high fixed costs). if this scale was ramped up past the competitive tipping point by government investment, then they could be sold profitably in large quantities for a competitive price.
take the tesla roadster for example. that car should not cost $90,000, it should cost $30,000, and probably would if it were produced at a scale on par with the major car companies. if the government is going to be in business of propping up industries, it might as well put some money into generating new ones as well.
 
2009-03-02 11:19:40 AM
Nabb1: Nuclear power. Come on, people, are we really that intimidated by something that doesn't scare the French? Three Mile Island was thirty years ago, and that was a catastrophe that was avoided, too boot. Chernobyl? Twenty years ago with substandard Soviet technology, more of a testament to the deplorable policies of the USSR than an indictment of nuclear energy as a whole. We've made a few technological advances since then.

Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we buried a few tons of nuclear waste in your backyard for the next few millenia, right?
 
2009-03-02 11:20:06 AM
Seabon: Your model of efficiency doesn't take the externality of pollution into account.

Exactly. Start taxing / fining companies for polluting the environment and suddenly green energy is a real cost savings.
 
2009-03-02 11:20:52 AM
To paraphrase Leo McGarry, I believe in the future of alternative fuels because I recognize that in the history of everything that works, there was once a time when it didn't work.
 
2009-03-02 11:25:29 AM
pwhp_67: We need to keep the slave trade going.

IT IS INEXPENSIVE AND KEEPS PEOPLE WORKING!


I prefer Jewish slave labor.

/Now its a Goddamned Godwinned thread!
 
2009-03-02 11:26:43 AM
thomps: i've got absolutely no problem with building new nuclear plants. my point was that many alternative sources can become competitive if they are built at a large scale (to offset r&d and high fixed costs). if this scale was ramped up past the competitive tipping point by government investment, then they could be sold profitably in large quantities for a competitive price.
take the tesla roadster for example. that car should not cost $90,000, it should cost $30,000, and probably would if it were produced at a scale on par with the major car companies. if the government is going to be in business of propping up industries, it might as well put some money into generating new ones as well.


Sorry about you've fallen into my I just really hate the government days. They happen from time to time. I just don't think the government needs to get into this. I understand economy of scale and how per unit price decrease on bulk production but when the government starts tell business what to do we get the messes we have now. Car companies wouldn't need help if they were allowed to produce the cars we want! Banks wouldn't need the help if the government didn't tell them they had to loan to certain people! Sure there are scumbags that worked the system like a Thai hooker but for the most part I blame the government. And since I blame the government I have to blame the voter as well. So I really don't want to get the government involved with this stuff. Better that some private company gets to invest the money and reap the benefits.


go nuke
 
2009-03-02 11:28:36 AM
Lundah: Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind if we buried a few tons of nuclear waste in your backyard for the next few millenia, right?

Currently, commercial high level nuclear waste is less than one percent of that currently produced by defense projects. Source. Put some of that "stimulus" money into reprocessing technology, why don't we? Wind and solar are nice, but nuclear is proven technology. I'd rather see money going to make use of existing technology than into the pockets of that snake-oil salesman, T. Boone Pickens.
 
2009-03-02 11:31:07 AM
DarthBrooks: Thank BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN and goddamn Jackson Browne for where we're at now.

No, thank 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl for where we are at now.

But this is not to say that nuclear power is not worth doing. I live about 25 minutes away from the United States' first privately-owned nuclear power plant (Dresden, in Morris, IL) and I'm glad to have it there. I've fished on and have eaten fish from the cooling lakes that feed the nuclear plants (and all of the fish have had only two eyes). Illinois has more nuclear power plants than any other state. I just wish they'd shut down the coal-burning plants in the area or get with the clean-coal tech already.
 
2009-03-02 11:31:35 AM
If they employ millions of people, there is plenty of room for efficiency.

/I'm thinking robots.
 
2009-03-02 11:34:07 AM
6,860.39
-202.54 (-2.87%)

Keep up the talk of drastic economic changes Mr. President. It seems to be having an effect on the rich investors. Soon they will be poor investors.
 
2009-03-02 11:35:55 AM
The Stealth Hippopotamus: When you and T.Boone get it figured out I will be more than happy to let you hook it to my house. But don't ask for government regulation forcing me to do it. Beat the fossil fuels and I will cheer the day, but force me to change for no other reason but the government tells me to then it will be a very sad day.

Nobody is going to force you to use clean energy. But, the energy playing field needs to be flattened. Currently if you refine oil, mine coal, burn coal, or distribute fuel oil you receive hefty subsidies from the federal and state governments that reduce your overhead significantly allowing you to sell power very cheaply.

If you produce power through wind or solar, you receive considerably less assistance from the government, making the power you generate 10-50% more expensive than the state subsidized fossil fuel power.

If all of the government subsidies were removed, energy prices would go up across the board, and fossil fuel energy would quickly diminish because it will be unable to compete with wind and solar production.
 
2009-03-02 11:37:33 AM
I_C_Weener: 6,860.39
-202.54 (-2.87%)

Keep up the talk of drastic economic changes Mr. President. It seems to be having an effect on the rich investors. Soon they will be poor investors.


Look on the bright side: only 6,860 points to go before the stock market goes back up.
 
2009-03-02 11:38:33 AM
I_C_Weener: 6,860.39
-202.54 (-2.87%)

Keep up the talk of drastic economic changes Mr. President. It seems to be having an effect on the rich investors. Soon they will be poor investors.


So when the Dow took a nosedive in 2008 after W had eight years to implement his economic policy, it was all because foolish borrowers took out loans they couldn't afford. When the Dow continues its death roll toward the bottom after Obama's had 45 days to implement his economic policy, it's all the president's fault.

You're pathetic.
 
2009-03-02 11:39:51 AM
Lando Lincoln: get with the clean-coal tech already.

Someone would have to invent it first.
 
2009-03-02 11:42:11 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: So when the Dow took a nosedive in 2008 after W had eight years to implement his economic policy, it was all because foolish borrowers took out loans they couldn't afford. When the Dow continues its death roll toward the bottom after Obama's had 45 days to implement his economic policy, it's all the president's fault.

You're pathetic.


Your breath smells of penis.

In his term it up to 13,100. I suppose that we can only credit the fall...not the rise. By that logic...Clinton should not be praised for his budget surplus...but by his cigar activities alone.

Since mid-summer...every speech by a President promising some kind of economic miracle has resulted in more money from us to them, and less rosy news on the econ front.
 
2009-03-02 11:43:05 AM
Lando Lincoln: Look on the bright side: only 6,860 points to go before the stock market goes back up.

Psh. Whatever. This thing's going negative, baby.
 
2009-03-02 11:44:42 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: So when the Dow took a nosedive in 2008 after W had eight years to implement his economic policy, it was all because foolish borrowers took out loans they couldn't afford. When the Dow continues its death roll toward the bottom after Obama's had 45 days to implement his economic policy, it's all the president's fault.

I think the downfall on Bush's watch can be traced directly to the terrible loans and lack of oversight that both parties had a hand in.

The continuing downward spiral during Obama's first month and a half can't all be directly attributed to him, but it does sure seem that investors are nervous and hearing Obama talk about making drastic changes with the stimulus plan, bailout packages, transformation of our energy infrastructure, massive budget, etc. all without details as to how these things will occur (see Geitner's speech) sure doesn't help the market get over its confidence problems.
 
2009-03-02 11:45:22 AM
I_C_Weener: In his term it up to 13,100. I suppose that we can only credit the fall...not the rise. By that logic...Clinton should not be praised for his budget surplus...but by his cigar activities alone.

It was an unsustainable rise brought about by irresponsible money policies at the Fed. We can hold Bush accountable for the many warning signs that were overlooked in terms of regulation, and more importantly for indebting us so greatly that the government's ability to deal with this problem is now very much compromised.
 
2009-03-02 11:45:52 AM
Lundah: Lando Lincoln: get with the clean-coal tech already.

Someone would have to invent it first.


It's not that hard of a concept.

1) Burn coal.
2) Filter the escaping gases for bad pollutants.
3) Release non-polluted air.

We know how to scrub air for pollutants. We just need to come up with some big filters than can be re-used.
 
2009-03-02 11:50:47 AM
KaponoFor3: It does sure seem that investors are nervous and hearing Obama talk about making drastic changes with the stimulus plan, bailout packages, transformation of our energy infrastructure, massive budget, etc. all without details as to how these things will occur (see Geitner's speech) sure doesn't help the market get over its confidence problems.

I get the same feeling when I go out with a group of my friends, who order massive amounts of food and drink for the table without any idea about who is supposed to pay for it. (My usual reaction is to slam down some reasonable amount of cash on the table and skip out early before anyone notices.)
 
2009-03-02 11:53:47 AM
Because windmills and solar cells apparently appear out of thin air so no jobs are created at all.
 
2009-03-02 12:03:44 PM
Lando Lincoln: Lundah: Lando Lincoln: get with the clean-coal tech already.

Someone would have to invent it first.

It's not that hard of a concept.

1) Burn coal.
2) Filter the escaping gases for bad pollutants.
3) Release non-polluted air.

We know how to scrub air for pollutants. We just need to come up with some big filters than can be re-used.


But can it be done economically? And can regulations requiring these scrubbers be made impregnable to industry manipulation and lobbying?

I think the fact that the coal industry will invest millions in removing future regulations requiring the filters and scrubbers to make their product clean precludes any future spending on clean coal technology. Why throw good money after bad, when there are technologies that are clean on the ground floor.
 
2009-03-02 12:04:14 PM
Fossil fuel use wasn't exactly efficient at the beginning. Heck, it's not very efficient now if you take into account the amount of time and energy it took to actually MAKE the stuff we are pumping and digging up. We need energy systems with a shorter renewal cycle. We can't wait a few million years for more coal and oil to be made.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report