• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama's Energy Plan VS Rmoney's Energy Plan

LOL

We loaned Brazil money to develop off shore oil, look up Petrobas loans, and look at how many shares of Petrobas Soros had and how much money he made after the US loan.

Brazil tried to convert to ethanol, it failed. now they are desperately trying to get back on oil. Ethanol used up most of their food crops so food prices soared, ethanol is more expensive than gasoline so energy prices soared. massive failure in every way

So you think a fuel source that takes millions of years to make is somehow better than one that takes a growing season? Ethanol is at least renewable. You are not going to renew the oil supply of the earth in 100 lifetimes. pretty much when it is gone, it is gone. The earth is not making the stuff underground. At least you can try to grow crops every year. It just doesn't make sense to have your fuel and food competing with each other. Plus, basing your energy on a resource which can have vastly different growing seasons and yields is dangerous at best. Ethanol is not a substitute for gasoline. it merely allows for less dependence on foreign oil.

Despite it's poor replacement value for Oil, we have been using ethanol for many years to decrease the amount of oil used for fuel. These temporary measures allow for time to develop other better technologies. One of the best is probably hydrogen. I find it amazing the propaganda about hydrogen and the lies about it's dangers that have come up. HP storage is fairly safe today. I have some 6000 PSI units here in my house, and use them regularly. Hydrogen is also far less dangerous than petroleum products if it happens to escape. hydrogen dissipates extremely fast for a gas, and though it can be explosive, it also does not burn the same as gasoline or fossil fuels.

You should really stop believing the bull**** the oil salesman tells you.
Solyndra, 500 million down the drain.

Yes, we need to work on alternative energy, but let the free market do it. The govt did not incentivize Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Edison, Salk, or Bill Cosby.


You might want to educate yourself on the government. Money for development of new technologies is quite common, and has been budgeted into your taxes for as long as you have been alive. It is not like this is a new untried thing. it is merely a movement of the present funds for development to focus on this goal. if they cancelled green energy development it is not like the money goes back into the budget for other non-development things. It would just go to developing some other important technology.
The guy that comes up with an efficient, affordable alternative energy source will be an instant billionaire. But if you try to do it with govt money, that incentive goes away because the govt would claim all of the profits.

Again, you are wrong. yes, the guy who developed it would sell the patents, and we would never see the technology. Let us say i developed a hydrogen power plant that would fit into most cars. The first thing that happens is the oil tycoons come over and buy up the patent, and then bury the technology. Why? because they sell oil, and competition that removes them from the market makes all the money they spent on mineral rights and drilling virtually worthless. You seem to be under the false impression that trechnology wins. it is greed that wins. oil makes money, and therefor it is protected.
Real GREEN energy is a long way off, while we are working on that, we need to find ways to conserve traditional fuels and use them more efficiently.

Why, according to you the earth just spits out oil and makes it automatically. people will not be allowed to switch until they have to. Just think about all the jobs and money that would be needed to switch america over to a new fuel system. One of the things hampering electric cars presently is that they cannot find a way to get you to a gas station to fill up. Anyone can offer up electricity, and all those gasoline companies would take a massive hit if you do not have to refuel at their special location. this is why the development has shifted to a replaceable battery that you have to get from a fuel station instead of just an electrical plug. They don't want cars running on something you can get from almost anywhere. they want you to have to go to them so they can sell you something.

the biggest obstacle in the way of green technology is the present system that makes a lot of money off of you. They are not going to let you have free, efficient, easily renewable energy if they can prevent it. What is great is you listen to their bull and like the sheep you are buy it.
China is building coal fired electric plants as fast as they can, so is India. those countries need the energy and the US is the coal capital of the world. why not make money for US companies by selling our coal to China and India?

Because china is not going to rely on it's largest competitor for it's fuel. yes, coal plants are developed and quick to set up. they meet a need fast, and china needs things fast. They are not going to rely on it forever, especially if it means relying on the US to supply them. In all honesty, the best hope in the world for cheap, efficient, and good fuel is a communist or socialist state. capitlism loves waste because waste makes money. Communism hates waste because it takes away from the governments money. If they can develop free green energy it is great for their government. it saves money and that puts money into the hands of the chinese government.
 
So you think a fuel source that takes millions of years to make is somehow better than one that takes a growing season? Ethanol is at least renewable. You are not going to renew the oil supply of the earth in 100 lifetimes. pretty much when it is gone, it is gone. The earth is not making the stuff underground. At least you can try to grow crops every year. It just doesn't make sense to have your fuel and food competing with each other. Plus, basing your energy on a resource which can have vastly different growing seasons and yields is dangerous at best. Ethanol is not a substitute for gasoline. it merely allows for less dependence on foreign oil.

Where to even begin with this nonsense

Ethanol is a total disaster that would be bust if it were not milking subsidies from the Government. The biggest lobbyist for ethanol subsidies in WA is Wesley Clarke. It's causing the prices of other goods and services dependent upon corn to go up as well. I'm not sure who's been filling your brain full of nonsense but you need to go find that person and slap them in the face for making you spend a lot of time embarrassing yourself on a public forum.

Blighted harvest: The American corn ethanol disaster | Washington Times Communities

A major downside of producing corn ethanol is the amount of energy required: Ethanol made from corn returns only 25% more energy than is consumed to make it. This means that each gallon of ethanol fuel is only 25% “renewable” energy (a 4:1 ratio). In contrast, Brazilian cane ethanol yields 800% more energy than is consumed in its production (a 1:8 ratio), and is a much better alternative as a sustainable fuel.

Basic chemistry dictates that gallon for gallon, burning ethanol produces only 2/3 as much energy as burning gasoline.

Ethanol is actually not all that great for the environment? Say it ain't so

Despite it's poor replacement value for Oil, we have been using ethanol for many years to decrease the amount of oil used for fuel. These temporary measures allow for time to develop other better technologies. One of the best is probably hydrogen. I find it amazing the propaganda about hydrogen and the lies about it's dangers that have come up. HP storage is fairly safe today. I have some 6000 PSI units here in my house, and use them regularly. Hydrogen is also far less dangerous than petroleum products if it happens to escape. hydrogen dissipates extremely fast for a gas, and though it can be explosive, it also does not burn the same as gasoline or fossil fuels.

See above. Your just spewing a bunch of cliche talking points that were spoonfed to you by the Sierra Club or some other far left organization. Nothing you stated is even remotely related to reality in regards to ethanol. Ethanol is a total DISASTER that is sucking the Treasury dry, hurting farmers, and is directly responsible for the increase in food prices across the board.

You should really stop believing the bull**** the oil salesman tells you.

Irony and projection detected

You might want to educate yourself on the government. Money for development of new technologies is quite common, and has been budgeted into your taxes for as long as you have been alive. It is not like this is a new untried thing. it is merely a movement of the present funds for development to focus on this goal. if they cancelled green energy development it is not like the money goes back into the budget for other non-development things. It would just go to developing some other important technology.

Thoughts on the End of the Ethanol Tax Credit - Market Power

Good News for 2012: Ethanol Tax Credits, Tariffs, End |

Ethanol is just another crony capitalist scheme

Again, you are wrong. yes, the guy who developed it would sell the patents, and we would never see the technology. Let us say i developed a hydrogen power plant that would fit into most cars. The first thing that happens is the oil tycoons come over and buy up the patent, and then bury the technology. Why? because they sell oil, and competition that removes them from the market makes all the money they spent on mineral rights and drilling virtually worthless. You seem to be under the false impression that trechnology wins. it is greed that wins. oil makes money, and therefor it is protected.

Why, according to you the earth just spits out oil and makes it automatically. people will not be allowed to switch until they have to. Just think about all the jobs and money that would be needed to switch america over to a new fuel system. One of the things hampering electric cars presently is that they cannot find a way to get you to a gas station to fill up. Anyone can offer up electricity, and all those gasoline companies would take a massive hit if you do not have to refuel at their special location. this is why the development has shifted to a replaceable battery that you have to get from a fuel station instead of just an electrical plug. They don't want cars running on something you can get from almost anywhere. they want you to have to go to them so they can sell you something.

Social Utopian statist nonsense. I'll ignore the fact that you setup the strawman with a false premise, just answer me one question. How is electricity generated? GM just stopped all production on the Volt. It's a total disaster. The Green Tech scams in the Stimulus were all a disaster. Electric Car Battery manufacturers, solar panel companies, all bankrupt. The Democrats were told they were going to go bankrupt, even if they poured billions of taxpayer dollars into the program to keep them afloat. The result? Economic disaster.

All of your ideas are pure fantasy. The fallacy is Government Spending creates demand, or can create a new market that stable, ect. It's not true.

the biggest obstacle in the way of green technology is the present system that makes a lot of money off of you. They are not going to let you have free, efficient, easily renewable energy if they can prevent it. What is great is you listen to their bull and like the sheep you are buy it.

Green Tech is a total scam and it's not free. See Solyndra ect ect ect ect ect ect ect Yea I know facts don't matter to an ideologue like you but w/e~

Because china is not going to rely on it's largest competitor for it's fuel. yes, coal plants are developed and quick to set up. they meet a need fast, and china needs things fast. They are not going to rely on it forever, especially if it means relying on the US to supply them. In all honesty, the best hope in the world for cheap, efficient, and good fuel is a communist or socialist state. capitlism loves waste because waste makes money. Communism hates waste because it takes away from the governments money. If they can develop free green energy it is great for their government. it saves money and that puts money into the hands of the chinese government.

It's fitting that you end your emotional rant extolling the virtues of communism
 
A stimulas package like the American Jobs Act is only justifiable if it is going to absolutely save the economy OR if it is going to greatly raise the american standard of living to such a degree that there will be a large boom in revenue. I like to site the example of Eisenhowers programs to build the American highway system as a clear illustration of this point.

After Obama wins the November election he will have enough political capital to put forth another version of the American Jobs Act. But this next version will have to be even bolder. It would have to have SIGNIFICANT measures which involve the creation of a Green Energy Infrastructure throughout the entire country.

Building A Green Energy Infrastructure is the key to this nation's future.
Right off the bat, building a Green Infrastructure would literally create millions of NEW jobs. The revenue from that alone would be able to equalize budget deficits and begin to pay off the national debt. But the beneifts of a Green Infrastructure go way beyond just job creation.

A Green Infrastructure also creates a cleaner standard of living. It means that we have less people dying from the toxins of dirty energy pollution, which in turns saves the American people untold billions in medical costs. It improves the quality of life.

A Green Infrastructure would also cure our great nation of our delirious addiction to foreign oil. The end of this addiction would mean we would no long waste TRILLIONS of dollars for unethical wars for oil in the middle east. We also immediately no longer even have the headache of trying to keep the peace in the middle east soley for geo-political neccessity. Of course we will encourage peace in the middle east, but quite honestly if those dipshlts want to blow the tarnations out of each other, then it will be no skin off our peckers now, will it?

A Green Infrastructure also means no more multi-billion dollar oil spill clean-ups that reek untold havoc on the tourism of the gulf - or wherever such a disaster would occur.

The upside on this is so great, that to not invest it in - and to continue on the failed "addiction to foreign oil" energy policy that our nation has been on for the last 40 years is akin to 21st century suicide!!!
View attachment 67133189


The difference between Obama's Green Energy plan and Romney's Same Old Same Old plan is actually the most important issue in the campaign.
If our nation goes with Obama's Green Energy Plan we will continue to be a major force in the world in the 21st century.
If we stick with the failed plan of allowing big corporate oil companies to continue to rape the American people - the plan that Romney seems to want, then the 21st century will be filled with violence, desruction, poverty and pollution for our once great nation.
 
The difference between Obama's Green Energy plan and Romney's Same Old Same Old plan is actually the most important issue in the campaign.
If our nation goes with Obama's Green Energy Plan we will continue to be a major force in the world in the 21st century.
If we stick with the failed plan of allowing big corporate oil companies to continue to rape the American people - the plan that Romney seems to want, then the 21st century will be filled with violence, desruction, poverty and pollution for our once great nation.
Two articles for the gloom and doom naysaying anti-AMericanExceptionalism crowd:

Sun, wind and wave-powered: Europe unites to build renewable energy 'supergrid' | Environment | The Guardian

Making the Grid Work for Renewable Energy: Scientific American
 
I think people have delusional expectations of what kind of electricity generation we are going to get from alternative power sources in the nearterm, especially when matched up against demand. We are talking about a planet that still needs Terrawatts of power, and will need more and more in the near term. Just to reiterate the big impediment to alternative energy sources is the need for tremendous amounts of electricity at rates that are competitive with hydrocarbons and nuclear, in addition to 'reforming' the grid which is much more complex then people are often led to believe. The best alternatives are hydropower due to the huge electricity yield we can get out of it. If the efficiency can actually get there, then Solar is the one I think is the most likely of the ones being discussed, reliant of course upon similar advances in battery and grid capture technology. But if you could get there and then scale it up, it would be a great way to build large power plants. I'm much less optimistic about the future of tidal and wind power (which I'm happy to address, I believe I neglected to do so in another thread but I've forgotten it now), I think they only have the capacity for niche production. So yeah, in 30 years my order of precedence would be natural gas, toss up between coal and nuclear, hydro, solar. I think solar will edge past oil fueled plants sometime in the 2020's. In the meantime keep developmental projects going, but open up the country for drilling and hydrofracking, expand the frontiers of exploration, allow the creation of offshore terminals to stimulate exploration of NG even at the expense of short term price hikes, etc.
 
I think it would behoove many people to take a look at what the unsubsidized levelized cost per kilowatt hour is for these different energy sources, and then to also look at it with subsidies and realize it doesn't get all that much better.
 
How is 'reforming' the grid much more complex then people are often led to believe?



I think it would behoove many people to take a look at what the unsubsidized levelized cost per kilowatt hour is for these different energy sources, and then to also look at it with subsidies and realize it doesn't get all that much better.
 
How is 'reforming' the grid much more complex then people are often led to believe?

I'll list a few reasons, but I'll come back with a more comprehensive answer.

1. Our grid is ultra-regionalized, we do not have a single electrical grid that is overseen. We have three independently organized metagrids The Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, and the Texas Electric Reliability council. These three grids are only loosely linked together and are more or less self-contained. Furthermore that is only for synchronization, those are not market components. There are a patchwork of different whole sale markets, and hundreds of non-wholesale networks especially in the mid-west and parts of California. Breaking it down further there are something like 150 independent departments that manage and balance energy and transmission needs in real time with only loose coordination at a regional level. Some of our utilities are private, some cooperative, some investor owned, and some are federal to add to the complexity.

2. In addition to our highly partitioned grid we have massive geographic variation which dramatically effects power costs, demand, and output.

3. As far as things go and despite popular conception our grid isn't "that bad" in that it actually performs to the same standard as European countries and actually does a little bit better in terms of losses during transmission and power distribution (we beat out Canada, France, Italy, and the UK). Where we do poorly in is the duration of our interruptions which has mostly to do with our exposed power lines.

4. Bearing all of this in mind it is difficult to create a mechanism for addressing grid reform and overhaul, and moreover to even know where to begin or what to do. It is absolutely possible to over-invest in a portion of the grid, and come out with relatively diminishing results for enormous capital investment. So far we haven't actually done a horrible job in self-correcting and improving our efficiency.

5. It could cost hundreds of billions of dollars if not into the trillion mark to reform and upgrade the entire grid at once as part of a planned project, and you might not get a huge amount out of it which is why approaching the overhaul has been relatively difficult.

6. Integrating alternative energy sources into the existing electrical grid is difficult and expensive.

Those are just a few and I'll come back with some more comprehensive answers.
 
Gosh Sherman123. You write like an experienced systems engineer.
Engineering always get in the way of doing what people want to do. Damn.
 
Back
Top Bottom