Thread: Barack Obama pushes for $1bn green tax credits

To recap ~

Originally Posted by Catawba

And have the gas prices gone down or up since Carter? Just because its taken longer to get there doesn't mean we have dodged the inevitable bullet. As Republican Senator noted recently, "Jimmy Carter was right!"

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

We did listen to Carter and got near 50% of our electricity from Coal, is that a good thing or bad?
As far as I can see the country DID follow his energy plan

Originally Posted by Catawba

Carter also promoted and was providing funding for research and development of alternative energies such as solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels, as well as coal. An all of the above approach. However, all that, except coal was dropped when the big energy companies got Reagan elected and he ended carter's alternative energy programs. Reagan even took the solar panels down from the White House.

So you are wrong. We didn't follow Carter's plan.

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

I know all that and it all FAILED.

Originally Posted by Catawba

It didn't fail, it was cut off by the oil president, and replaced with Reaganomics

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

You seem so knowledgeable regarding what Carter and Reagan did, please post a link to your assertion Reagan "cut off" programs started by Carter.

Originally Posted by Catawba

"President Jimmy Carter requested the creation of the DOE as his first attempt at reorganizing the Federal agencies. Congress created the new agency with one major change from Carter's request. Carter wanted the authority to set wholesale interstate electricity rates and crude oil prices to rest with the DOE secretary. Congress vested this authority in an independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The enabling legislation reflected the energy and environmental concerns of the late 1970s. The DOE was to "promote maximum possible energy conservation measures" and to give the commercial use of solar, geothermal, recycling, and other renewable energy resources "the highest priority in the national energy program."

"The Reagan and Bush era. Early in his first term, Ronald Reagan sought to abolish the DOE. He cut hundreds of positions from enforcement divisions of the agency. Reagan's abolition attempt failed in Congress when a General Accounting Office study revealed that abolition of the DOE would not save any money. Reagan was still able to change the function significantly. The Reagan-era DOE placed a much stronger focus on nuclear weapons production, nuclear energy, and fossil fuels. The Reagan administration cut DOE funding for renewable energy and conservation programs by as much as 80 percent, while it pledged to speed the licensing process of new nuclear power plants. The Reagan-era DOE deregulated the gasoline market. Between 1981 and 1989 the DOE dramatically expanded its weapons production and testing activities. During the previous decade nuclear weapons had been tested once every two years. In the 1980s three nuclear tests were conducted each year. The DOE also began preparations to store high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada."

Bibliography

Fehner, Terrence R., and Jack M. Holl. Department of Energy, 1977–1994: A Summary History. Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy, 1994.

Fehner, Terrence R., and F. G. Gosling. "Coming in From the Cold: Regulating U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities, 1942–1996." Environmental History 1, no. 2 (April 1996): 5–33.

Gosling, F. G., and Terrence R. Fehner. Closing the Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Management, 1942–1994. Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy, 1994.

Hewlett, Richard G., and Oscar E. Anderson Jr. The New World, 1939–1946. Vol.1of A History of the Atomic Energy Commission. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.


Read more: Department of Energy: Definition from Answers.com

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

Of course he did

Glad I could help!

Originally Posted by j-mac

Probably because he saw it for what it was, top down central government planning and command control that never works.
j-mac

I like this part.

"Early in his first term, Ronald Reagan sought to abolish the DOE. He cut hundreds of positions from enforcement divisions of the agency. Reagan's abolition attempt failed in Congress when a General Accounting Office study revealed that abolition of the DOE would not save any money".

Cutting hundreds of positions would not save money?

It seems to be a case of the bureaucracy protecting the bureaucracy. Or perhaps a union thing.

How much energy does the DOE create? I've heard it is none.

Originally Posted by Grant

Do you really? And how do you know that?



So John McCain is your source for the price of oil in 2025? Is that why you voted for him in the last election?

When you make the claim that ANWAR would only change the price of oil by 21 cents over the next 13 years are you adjusting for inflation?

Just kidding. You actually have no idea, do you?

I remembered incorrectly. I was off by 20 cents a barrel:

"the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel—and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today. EIA produced the analysis in response to a request by Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who noted that the last time the agency had taken a look at the economics of ANWR production was in 2000, when oil was $22.04 a barrel."

Arctic Drilling Wouldn't Cool High Oil Prices - US News and World Report

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

Let me get this straight, your all for saving the natural beauty and wildlife of ANWR, but in favor of destroying the natural beauty and wildlife of the desert? Got it!

You're not getting it straight at all.

I already said I'm not opposed to drilling in ANWR but I'd rather save it for a rainy day, especially since it's only about a six month supply (which will take 10 years to extract).

On the other hand, the Mojave is 25,000 square miles (similar in size to ANWR) while Wrangle-St. Ellis, our biggest National Park, is half that size. In the lower 48, the biggest NPs are Death Valley and Yellowstone are 5400 and 3400 square miles respectively. The Mojave is vast, and has room for solar villages, military bases, etc that no one will ever see. Also, while part of the Mojave is a National Preserve, administrated by the NPS, that portion is only 2300 square miles. Lots of room for solar.

Originally Posted by Catawba

I remembered incorrectly. I was off by 20 cents a barrel:

"the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded that new oil from ANWR would lower the world price of oil by no more than $1.44 per barrel—and possibly have as little effect as 41 cents per barrel—and would have its largest impact nearly 20 years from now if Congress voted to open the refuge today. EIA produced the analysis in response to a request by Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who noted that the last time the agency had taken a look at the economics of ANWR production was in 2000, when oil was $22.04 a barrel."

Arctic Drilling Wouldn't Cool High Oil Prices - US News and World Report

Why not be honest and say it could also be as much as $1.44 a barrel? Do you really believe you are fooling anyone?

Originally Posted by Hikertrash

You're not getting it straight at all.

The Mojave is 25,000 square miles while Wrangle-St. Ellis, our biggest National Park, is half that size. In the lower 48, the biggest are Death Valley and Yellowstone are 5400 and 3400 square miles respectively. The Mojave is vast, and has room for solar villages, military bases, etc that no one will ever see. Also, while part of the Mojave is a National Preserve, administrated by the NPS, that portion is only 2300 square miles. Lots of room for solar.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR or Arctic Refuge) is a national wildlife refuge in northeastern Alaska, United States. It consists of 19,286,722 acres (78,050.59 km2) in the Alaska North Slope region.

The controversy surrounds drilling for oil in a 1,500,000 acres.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mojave is 25,000 square miles and ANWR is 30,135 square miles so they are comparable in size. However your headed off into left field away from the question.

Are you in favor of saving the natural beauty and wildlife of ANWR, but also in favor of destroying the natural beauty and wildlife of the desert?

That's the question, please answer it.

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

That's the question, please answer it.

Yup, edited my answer above to include ANWR.

In a nutshell:

I already said I'm not opposed to drilling in ANWR but I'd rather save it for a rainy day, especially since it's only about a six month supply (which will take 10 years to extract).

From your link:

The question of whether to drill for oil in the ANWR has been an ongoing political controversy in the United States since 1977. The controversy surrounds drilling for oil in a 1,500,000 acres (6,100 km2) subsection on the coastal plain, known as the "1002 area." Much of the debate over whether to drill in the 1002 area of ANWR rests on the amount of economically recoverable oil, as it relates to world oil markets, weighed against the potential harm oil exploration might have upon the natural wildlife, in particular the calving ground of the Porcupine caribou

From another link:

So what would be the economic impact of opening ANWR to oil production?

ANWR oil reserves would represent 0.4 to 1.2 percent of world oil consumption by 2030, so ANWR oil would have little impact on world oil prices.
At its peak, ANWR oil would contribute about 0.8 million barrels per day to U.S. oil production, but America would still import about 10.6 million barrels of oil per day.
The total amount of money that the United States spent on foreign oil between 2018 and 2030 would be cut by $202 billion (2006 dollars) if ANWR were opened to oil production.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...ergy/anwr2.htm

In the meantime I don't think there's anything preventing oil companies from drilling in the NPRA. Why not expand there?

320px-NPRA_F1lg.gif

for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...E2%80%93Alaska

Originally Posted by Hikertrash

Yup, edited my answer above to include ANWR.

In a nutshell:

I already said I'm not opposed to drilling in ANWR but I'd rather save it for a rainy day, especially since it's only about a six month supply (which will take 10 years to extract).

From your link:

From another link:

That's not what you said....

Originally Posted by Hikertrash

Or maybe the oil companies want to lock up the land until it makes better economical sense to extract the oil. Since oil company profits always remain high as ever, why would they want to create more supply when it would only lower the price?

While I'm not for opening ANWR for reasons which consist of saving natural beauty and wildlife to not turning National Parks into oil fields, I'm also realistic enough to think we should save ANWR's oil for a rainy day. The Mojave is a vast desert and can certainly absorb solar panels, windmills can be built in non-migratory paths, Bonneville Dam, for one, has locks for spawning salmon.

The nuclear waste issue needs to be solved and as far as NG is concerned, again, I'm not opposed to drilling, just not on, or near, our national treasures. Hydrogen needs advances in technology. If the country can back lunar landings and space exploration, it should also back alternative energies. We're going to need it.

I'm confused....First you say "While I'm not for opening ANWR for reasons which consist of saving natural beauty and wildlife". Then you say...."I already said I'm not opposed to drilling in ANWR". Those are conflicting statements, please clarify your position. And again...

Are you in favor of saving the natural beauty and wildlife of ANWR, but also in favor of destroying the natural beauty and wildlife of the desert? Why is the beauty and wildlife of the desert less important and expendable than the beauty and wildlife of the Arctic.

Originally Posted by Hikertrash

I already said I'm not opposed to drilling in ANWR but I'd rather save it for a rainy day...

I drive a truck for a living, diesel is through the roof. If I have to fill my tanks, it can cost as much as $1200. per fill up. This cost is GOING to be passed along. My wife thank goodness finally found a job, part time, at $8.50 an hour. She works for 4 hours a day, and drives 26 miles round trip to do it. Now according to Obama she is no longer unemployed....BTW, before this she was a 20 year experienced graphic artist. It is costing her about $6 per day to go in and make $20. How does that make sense?


It's raining.....With thunder.


j-mac

Originally Posted by Grant

Why not be honest and say it could also be as much as $1.44 a barrel? Do you really believe you are fooling anyone?

If you want to go with that, fine. In ten years ANWR would enable us to pay $1.44 less for a barrel of oil. Which means instead of paying probably by then $150 for a barrel of oil, it will only cost us $148.56 a barrel.

Hoo-ray! We are saved from peak oil!!!! I don't know why someone didn't think of this sooner!