Poll: Green Energy or Energy Independence?

luvtolean · 06-25-2008, 08:15 PM

We all know energy is going to be a big, huge issue in the upcoming election.

I don't think either candidate is selling a particularly good plan at this point, but it looks to me like Obama is going to focus on "green" energy, and McCain on "energy independence" from OPEC.

We've had numerous threads beating around this issue.

Both are definitely noble goals. Some of the green schemes have a path to independence, but I don't think anyone disputes that path is longer than that with a stated goal focused on independence. (especially when you write off friendly alternate sources considered "unclean")

So, which is more important to you? Independent, or green?

Public poll.

seamus · 06-25-2008, 08:32 PM

I have a similar thought process.

Independence with green independance as the goal. If we can stop the political crap and really address the problems and solutions, we'd get a lot more done in a lot less time.

I understand that politicians are looking to shore up their own states but if you really stop to look at the problem, we're all hurting short term and delaying or completely impeding a viable mid-term solution until a viable long-term solution can be had only prolongs the hurt.

BizJetGuy · 06-25-2008, 08:35 PM

Good poll.

I believe Energy Independence is the way to go. In a simple supply-and-demand model, independence gives you ultimate control over your resources and future (i.e. security).

Independence needs to be taken farther than just drilling. Refining is where the real shortfall occurs. We haven't been allowed to build a new refinery in this country in almost 40 years. And as a reminder, gas prices were pretty stable until Katrina and Rita shut down most of the U.S. refineries (about 75% of American refining capabilities are located in the Gulf of Mexico). Once that refining supply was disrupted, prices started going crazy and they haven't recovered since. All it takes is the threat of a hurricane in the Gulf to cause a price ripple.

I also agree with you that green schemes have a path to independence but tend to think of it the other way. Fossil fuels provide the most bang for the buck. Period. Until a resource is found or developed to provide the same BTU's at as low a cost as oil, oil is going to be king.

It has taken decades to provide the infrastructure for oil-based energy. It will takes decades more to develop an infrastructure for a replacement, green or otherwise. Therefore, it has to be a super-cheap source of energy to promote development of the infrastructure.

How's that for diatribe?

Purpdust · 06-25-2008, 09:08 PM

I voted for Independence

I feel that Green will only work if it is Economical. Obviously independence is can happen and get greener over time. The cost of fuel/energy will force people to be efficient, efficiency and cleaner technologies will allow for a lower footprint per capita.

Purpdust · 06-25-2008, 09:16 PM

BizJet,

Good Points, on a similar topic. The general population should also start watching what they are buying and try to get local products when over possible. Even demand it.

Over time this will allow for a healthier Local economy and will help Country as well. Think of the transportation cost saving plus it will provide jobs for your friends and neighbours

Hammer · 06-25-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BizJetGuy

Good poll.

I believe Energy Independence is the way to go. In a simple supply-and-demand model, independence gives you ultimate control over your resources and future (i.e. security).

Independence needs to be taken farther than just drilling. Refining is where the real shortfall occurs. We haven't been allowed to build a new refinery in this country in almost 40 years. And as a reminder, gas prices were pretty stable until Katrina and Rita shut down most of the U.S. refineries (about 75% of American refining capabilities are located in the Gulf of Mexico). Once that refining supply was disrupted, prices started going crazy and they haven't recovered since. All it takes is the threat of a hurricane in the Gulf to cause a price ripple.

I also agree with you that green schemes have a path to independence but tend to think of it the other way. Fossil fuels provide the most bang for the buck. Period. Until a resource is found or developed to provide the same BTU's at as low a cost as oil, oil is going to be king.

It has taken decades to provide the infrastructure for oil-based energy. It will takes decades more to develop an infrastructure for a replacement, green or otherwise. Therefore, it has to be a super-cheap source of energy to promote development of the infrastructure.

How's that for diatribe?

I disagree with your thought process somewhat, about 75% being shut down in the gulf causing the up rising of costs. The platforms were evacuated during Katrina I will give it that, but the refining is on inland coasts. Not out in the gulf. The media hype and economist speculators have done more harm during this time than the politicians have. If they would shut their pie holes and quit getting everybody up in arms about the Peak Oil crisis, it would still be bad,,,,,,,,but not to the state that we are in right now. Oil companies play on the public for shutdowns just to raise prices. Remember the "Big" spill of Ethylene glycol back in the late 1980's when Antifreeze went up to $13 a gallon? That was a 100 gallon spill, blown out of proportion to get the price of the product up. Nothing different here with gas prices.

We are looking at rough times ahead in the electric industry.

Quote:

A Purdue energy forecast predicts electric rates could increase up to 22% by 2012 because of current environmental laws, fuel costs and new construction. The same group also states that future carbon legislation could add 50 percent more to your electric bills in the next 5 to 10 years. That is on top of the 22 percent already forecast.

IMO it will take both Green Energy and Energy Independence to pull us out of thesituation we are in right now. Also look at your electric bill, not what the final price is, but what is tacked on to your usage. This past winter on average I was charged $70 for fees on top of my KWH.

Quote:

Standard Contract Rider No. 60—Fuel Cost Adjustment
Standard Contract Rider No. 62—Qualified Pollution Control Property Revenue Adjustment
Standard Contract Rider No. 63—SO2 and NOx Emission Allowance Adjustment
Standard Contract Rider No. 64—Merger Savings Credit
Standard Contract Rider No. 66—Demand Side Management Adjustment
Standard Contract Rider No. 67—Recovery of Preapproved Purchased Power Costs to
Meet Retail Customer Peak Load Requirements
(Purchased Power Tracker)
Standard Contract Rider No. 68—Midwest ISO Management Cost and Revenue Adjustment
Standard Contract Rider No. 70—Summer Reliability Adjustment
Standard Contract Rider No. 71—Clean Coal Operating Cost Revenue Adjustment

http://www.duke-energy.com/pdfs/2008riderupdate(4).pdf

If you look, most of the adjustments are fees associated with producing electricity. With nothing being put into Green alternatives.

BizJetGuy · 06-25-2008, 09:39 PM

I guess I should have defined "in the Gulf" a little more. Yes, the offshore platforms are just punching holes but the refineries located on the coast of the Gulf were also shut down during the hurricane scares.

My neighbor in Houston was the guy that made the call on evacuations on the platforms and refineries for one of the smaller players so most of my intel would probably be considered hearsay. Admittedly, I have little knowledge of how the big boys operate.

I have heard, however, that the oil companies' economic models get the most return when oil is around $70/barrel. And yes, there are record profits but there is also record demand.

Forecasts say the global demand for oil will double in the next 20 years. We better start drilling, refining and building more nuclear plants yesterday. China, which is already a resource pig, is only going to get more hungry. Time to save ourselves in North America.

jose_jimenez · 06-25-2008, 09:45 PM

Just like with our economy, and our national debt, we need to be independent. First on the list is us, change has to start with us. We need to use less. If the country is ever going to get efficient then we must also. No pain, no gain.

Purpdust · 06-25-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BizJetGuy

... And yes, there are record profits but there is also record demand. ...

Don't forget record development cost

SheepOfBlue · 06-25-2008, 10:35 PM

Liberal fired power plants. When we run out of them we start on the owls.

luvtolean · 06-25-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer

IMO it will take both Green Energy and Energy Independence to pull us out of thesituation we are in right now. Also look at your electric bill, not what the final price is, but what is tacked on to your usage. This past winter on average I was charged $70 for fees on top of my KWH.

Which situation? The Iraq war? High gas prices? Screwed up electrical prices? Terrorism? 9/11? All are linked.

I actually don't feel like I understand what it will take to fix it. I have ideas, but I've done nowhere near the homework it would require.

What I do feel like I understand, is that they are competing interests. Remember this:

Quote:

By CAROL CHRISTIAN
Today staff
Wednesday March 26, 2008
A last minute, unnoticed clause added to a U.S. energy bill bars its government, in particular the department of defense, from using Alberta crude because it’s deemed unconventional and too dirty.
And this morning, a spokeswoman from the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said there are no plans to redefine unconventional to include oilsands crude. With it now being a “matter of law,” she said the government will be enforcing the clause.
One strategic resource analyst believes the clause may have been added after some political maneuvering by Saudi Arabia as it is increasingly threatened by Canada’s growing market share of oil production.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed into legislation in December. One provision in the Carbon Neutral Government Act incorporated into the energy act effectively bars the U.S. government from buying fuels that have greater life-cycle emissions than fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources. The U.S. defines Alberta oilsands as unconventional because the bitumen mined form the ground requires upgrading and refining as opposed to the traditional crude pumped from oil wells.
The clause was added by California Democrat Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the house committee on oversight and government reform and ranking Republican Tom Davis. In a letter dated March 17 to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Waxman wrote the clause was in response to proposals by the Air Force to develop coal-to-liquid fuels which produce almost double the greenhouse gas emissions of comparable conventional fuel.
“The provision is also applicable to fuels derived from tarsands, which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from conventional petroleum sources.”
With the last-minute addition of this clause, “They were able to bypass any sort of debate on this thing, and it did not catch the attention of senior members of the Republican party who could have deleted this particular piece of legislation from the bill,” said strategic resource analyst Paul Michael Wihbey.

That's a bunch of BS right there. So we have people, sneaking in clauses under the auspicies of green, but possibly due to Saudis not liking competition.

If we make a single goal, for one or the other, I believe you can effectively lead people to it. Things like this don't happen as they become politically untenable.

While some energy sources are inherently green, and should continue to be used, there are several alternatives, such as tar sands, coal to fuel, etc etc, that while maybe not "green" are certainly cylinders firing, spinning the flywheel to move us to independence. I wish we could have a national discussion on this to make a choice. Then the people and politicians can line up, and perverting special interests, which are always present in government, get steamrolled for the greater good.

oldfogey · 06-26-2008, 04:35 AM

Just to clarify, does "Independence" mean you'll stop using Canadian and Mexican gas and oil, or does Independence apply to NAFTA?

Baketech · 06-26-2008, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

If we make a single goal, for one or the other, I believe you can effectively lead people to it. Things like this don't happen as they become politically untenable.

That's the rub innit?

It's a big diverse country, and we all define our goals for energy policy a different way...hence a comprehensive unified energy policy will always remain a unicorn. Energy policy will continue to reflect the goals of the subset in power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

under the auspicies of green

Greenwashing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwash

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldfogey

Just to clarify, does "Independence" mean you'll stop using Canadian and Mexican gas and oil, or does Independence apply to NAFTA?

Wryly stated...

luvtolean · 06-26-2008, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldfogey

Just to clarify, does "Independence" mean you'll stop using Canadian and Mexican gas and oil, or does Independence apply to NAFTA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I don't think either candidate is selling a particularly good plan at this point, but it looks to me like Obama is going to focus on "green" energy, and McCain on "energy independence" from OPEC.

OPEC first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

That's the rub innit?

It's a big diverse country, and we all define our goals for energy policy a different way...hence a comprehensive unified energy policy will always remain a unicorn. Energy policy will continue to reflect the goals of the subset in power.

Yes. But if we move beyond a mixed message, and make a choice, you can move beyond the goals of the "subset", or more rather, the subset will learn to work within the goals of the majority.

Baketech · 06-26-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Yes. But if we move beyond a mixed message, and make a choice, you can move beyond the goals of the "subset", or more rather, the subset will learn to work within the goals of the majority.

You missed your calling as an Obama speechwriter...

"Moving beyond" will never happen... the issues too complex, the needs of the people too diverse, and the geography of the States too varied to ever have a consensus direction for national energy policy...

No offense to anyone intended, but imho, those that believe such a policy can be even be crafted, (let alone executed) have simply not grappled with the mathematics of the issues...

ND4SPD · 06-26-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Yes. But if we move beyond a mixed message, and make a choice, you can move beyond the goals of the "subset", or more rather, the subset will learn to work within the goals of the majority.

That will never happen. Our current crop of politicians don't have the stones to do that.

They have to be politically correct and try to please everyone so they can get more votes.

luvtolean · 06-26-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

No offense to anyone intended, but imho, those that believe such a policy can be even be crafted, (let alone executed) have simply not grappled with the mathematics of the issues...

None taken, but there I strongly disagree.

Baketech · 06-26-2008, 10:05 AM

Awesome, once you have the policy drafted up, put it up for vote...

luvtolean · 06-26-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baketech

Awesome, once you have the policy drafted up, put it up for vote...

I only wish I had the skills.

oldfogey · 06-26-2008, 10:53 AM

May I suggest a simple raise in consumption taxes on energy use, to be used to reduce taxes generally and specifically on goods that promote energy efficiency, such as insulation, replacement central heating boilers and air conditioners above a certain efficiency?

ND4SPD · 06-26-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

I only wish I had the skills.

Maybe you should try anyway...

Oil jumps above $140 on OPEC, Libya comments - Yahoo! News

CBRVFR · 06-26-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ND4SPD

That will never happen. Our current crop of politicians don't have the stones to do that.

They have to be politically correct and try to please everyone so they can get more votes.

In my soon-to-be-mercifully-over political role, I came up against a couple of NIMBY (not in my backyard) yuppie fucks who were objecting to an ordinance change allowing wind turbines in rural zoning areas .on aesthetic grounds

I told them they were better looking than Saudi flags on top of all the buildings.

I don't know how much KWattage we can generate from wind, solar, capturing cattle flatulence or whatever, but if there is enough subsidy in it, those things are likely to come on line faster than new conventional or nuclear plants, so I'm cautiously in favor of approaching a less dependent energy policy through that route.

But the laws of unintended consequences is out there like murphy's law.. Making gasoline out of food is a bad fucking idea.

View Poll Results: What Should be the Energy Policy Focus?
Green Energy	5	27.78%
Energy Independence	13	72.22%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

06-25-2008, 08:15 PM	#1
luvtolean Join Date: 12-13-2006 Location: SF Bay Area, CA Bike(s): 2008 BMW GS-A Posts: 6,396	Poll: Green Energy or Energy Independence? We all know energy is going to be a big, huge issue in the upcoming election. I don't think either candidate is selling a particularly good plan at this point, but it looks to me like Obama is going to focus on "green" energy, and McCain on "energy independence" from OPEC. We've had numerous threads beating around this issue. Both are definitely noble goals. Some of the green schemes have a path to independence, but I don't think anyone disputes that path is longer than that with a stated goal focused on independence. (especially when you write off friendly alternate sources considered "unclean") So, which is more important to you? Independent, or green? Public poll. __________________ The facility and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which are governments are most liable.- James Madison

06-25-2008, 08:32 PM	#2
seamus is feelin alright Join Date: 12-13-2006 Location: Rocket City Age: 34 Bike(s): 1KRR; VFR; FMX650 Posts: 5,546	I have a similar thought process. Independence with green independance as the goal. If we can stop the political crap and really address the problems and solutions, we'd get a lot more done in a lot less time. I understand that politicians are looking to shore up their own states but if you really stop to look at the problem, we're all hurting short term and delaying or completely impeding a viable mid-term solution until a viable long-term solution can be had only prolongs the hurt. __________________ Ducit Amor Patriae Richard Herald, The Gentle Giant The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. --- Thucydides

06-25-2008, 08:35 PM	#3
BizJetGuy Join Date: 12-18-2006 Location: Indiana Age: 39 Bike(s): Aprilia RST 1000 Posts: 792	Good poll. I believe Energy Independence is the way to go. In a simple supply-and-demand model, independence gives you ultimate control over your resources and future (i.e. security). Independence needs to be taken farther than just drilling. Refining is where the real shortfall occurs. We haven't been allowed to build a new refinery in this country in almost 40 years. And as a reminder, gas prices were pretty stable until Katrina and Rita shut down most of the U.S. refineries (about 75% of American refining capabilities are located in the Gulf of Mexico). Once that refining supply was disrupted, prices started going crazy and they haven't recovered since. All it takes is the threat of a hurricane in the Gulf to cause a price ripple. I also agree with you that green schemes have a path to independence but tend to think of it the other way. Fossil fuels provide the most bang for the buck. Period. Until a resource is found or developed to provide the same BTU's at as low a cost as oil, oil is going to be king. It has taken decades to provide the infrastructure for oil-based energy. It will takes decades more to develop an infrastructure for a replacement, green or otherwise. Therefore, it has to be a super-cheap source of energy to promote development of the infrastructure. How's that for diatribe? __________________ "Ix-nay on the Illbilly-hay"

06-25-2008, 09:08 PM	#4
Purpdust Join Date: 12-19-2006 Location: AB-Canada/Rome Italy Age: 33 Bike(s): gsxr 750 Posts: 1,456	I voted for Independence I feel that Green will only work if it is Economical. Obviously independence is can happen and get greener over time. The cost of fuel/energy will force people to be efficient, efficiency and cleaner technologies will allow for a lower footprint per capita. __________________ GSXR 750 - Track CRF450X - Dirt CRF100F - Soon to be a Mini Motard

06-25-2008, 09:16 PM	#5
Purpdust Join Date: 12-19-2006 Location: AB-Canada/Rome Italy Age: 33 Bike(s): gsxr 750 Posts: 1,456	BizJet, Good Points, on a similar topic. The general population should also start watching what they are buying and try to get local products when over possible. Even demand it. Over time this will allow for a healthier Local economy and will help Country as well. Think of the transportation cost saving plus it will provide jobs for your friends and neighbours __________________ GSXR 750 - Track CRF450X - Dirt CRF100F - Soon to be a Mini Motard

06-25-2008, 09:39 PM	#7
BizJetGuy Join Date: 12-18-2006 Location: Indiana Age: 39 Bike(s): Aprilia RST 1000 Posts: 792	I guess I should have defined "in the Gulf" a little more. Yes, the offshore platforms are just punching holes but the refineries located on the coast of the Gulf were also shut down during the hurricane scares. My neighbor in Houston was the guy that made the call on evacuations on the platforms and refineries for one of the smaller players so most of my intel would probably be considered hearsay. Admittedly, I have little knowledge of how the big boys operate. I have heard, however, that the oil companies' economic models get the most return when oil is around $70/barrel. And yes, there are record profits but there is also record demand. Forecasts say the global demand for oil will double in the next 20 years. We better start drilling, refining and building more nuclear plants yesterday. China, which is already a resource pig, is only going to get more hungry. Time to save ourselves in North America. __________________ "Ix-nay on the Illbilly-hay"

06-25-2008, 09:45 PM	#8
jose_jimenez Not Sure's Legal Representation Join Date: 01-05-2007 Bike(s): Hurricane Posts: 1,983	Just like with our economy, and our national debt, we need to be independent. First on the list is us, change has to start with us. We need to use less. If the country is ever going to get efficient then we must also. No pain, no gain.

06-25-2008, 10:35 PM	#10
SheepOfBlue SRA President Join Date: 12-18-2006 Location: Huntsville, AL Age: 46 Bike(s): CBR1000RR, RC51, VT500FT Posts: 6,492	Liberal fired power plants. When we run out of them we start on the owls. __________________ A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

06-26-2008, 04:35 AM	#12
oldfogey Senior member Join Date: 12-14-2006 Location: St Albans, UK Age: 56 Bike(s): Honda VFR800i, BSA Posts: 1,173	Just to clarify, does "Independence" mean you'll stop using Canadian and Mexican gas and oil, or does Independence apply to NAFTA? __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have - Gerald R. Ford

06-26-2008, 10:05 AM	#18
Baketech "Able was I ere I saw Elba..." Join Date: 12-14-2006 Bike(s): VFR800 - CBR929 - VFR800 Posts: 1,744	Awesome, once you have the policy drafted up, put it up for vote... __________________ "Ten times more charming than that Arnold on Green Acres..."

06-26-2008, 10:53 AM	#20
oldfogey Senior member Join Date: 12-14-2006 Location: St Albans, UK Age: 56 Bike(s): Honda VFR800i, BSA Posts: 1,173	May I suggest a simple raise in consumption taxes on energy use, to be used to reduce taxes generally and specifically on goods that promote energy efficiency, such as insulation, replacement central heating boilers and air conditioners above a certain efficiency? __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have - Gerald R. Ford