Get your Obamanometer!

Nuclear power was one the largest recipients of the public largesse. Was that a mistake?

0 Replies

So Obama said, in regard to the tire-gauge thing "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant. They think it's funny that they're making fun of something that is actually true."

Now, for him or against him - you must admit there's something disconcertingly Ramafuchsian about this statement - the indignation of it. Perhaps Obama's working out of the same foreign-language Marxist poetry book...

0 Replies

Your pride is showing hanno.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
That would depend on the particular conclusions you made. Some might be quite reasonable: others very questionable.

For example if you were to conclude that subsidies and mandates for the production of (say) wind power at any significant level could be accomplished without very significantly raising the cost of energy to consumers of all kinds, and negative impacts on the economy, then I would say that either your judgement or your arithmetic were seriously deficient.

Do you believe that the various subsidies we give the coal, oil and gas industries - and these take many different forms, and I know we've been over this before - make energy more expensive?

Cycloptichorn

Well I don't know of ANY susidies we provide to the coal or natural gas industries. I know that you consider some of the costs of the Iraqi war and other elements of our foreign policy since 1960 (when we first began to import petroleum in large quantities) as a "subsidy" for petroleum-based fuels.

While I'll acknowldge that - however difficult it may be to quantify - it doesn't alter the fact that energy in the form of liquid petroleum is extraordinarily easy and cheap to extract; transport to the point of use; and use to produce mechanical energy in IC engines of all kinds. Because of this there are few conversion losses as occur (say) in a wind turbine which converts wnwegy in the moving air to electrical power (with a large associated conversion loss) which is transported to the point of use with added (relatively small) losses comparable to those in transporting liquid gasoline; and then recoverted back into mechanical energy through a storage battery & motor, with yet another large fraction of conversion losses. These added losses require en extra 25% or so of generated energy to the equation -- not an insignificant sum when we consider our transportation needs.

Wind power (and solar too) is generated in much smaller quantities by the basic devices involwed; and both are highly location dependent for their sources. This means that, per unit of energy produced, much more investment will be required in transmission lines; and much more land will be set aside for their construction. This too is no insignificant factor in view of the very limited reserve capacity in our electrical power distribution network.

All of these factors involve basic engineering and economic considerations. None are particularly exciting to a relatively uneducated media and public, however all will lead to crippling economic effects if we foolishly attempt to put Obama's fanciful rhetorical "energy strategy" into actual practice. That and the tax increases he promises will defeat any natural incentive for capitalization of the huge investments he calls for. The resulting impasse will lead either to his political defeat or, if he succeeds, to far greater government intrusion into our economy and mismanagement of the affairs of individual people. The result will be serious and lasting economic harm to the country.

None of this foolishness is necessary. We have petroleum reserves in sufficient quantity to help reduce the (much inflated I think) market price for petroleum. We have enormous reserves of coal and the technology & nuclear fuel to easily double our use of that source. All of these assets are sufficient to enable our economy to manage the situation while, propelled by the higher cost of energy, alternative sources are developed, made practical and cost-efficient and gradually come on line through the normal economic processes that built this country.

0 Replies

The fact of the matter is that every Rep charge or mockery must be promptly rebutted, etc. A Dem can't leave it to the public's common sense [not] to understand the stupidity, or whatever, of the charge or mockery. This is a rulel increasingly proven true.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

None of this foolishness is necessary. We have petroleum reserves in sufficient quantity to help reduce the (much inflated I think) market price for petroleum. We have enormous reserves of coal and the technology & nuclear fuel to easily double our use of that source. All of these assets are sufficient to enable our economy to manage the situation while, propelled by the higher cost of energy, alternative sources are developed, made practical and cost-efficient and gradually come on line through the normal economic processes that built this country.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that drilling is necessary and sensible, and that this together with making use of coal and nuclear energy, it would bring down the cost of petroleum (and therefore gas) as well as energy in general.

Then you go on and argue that, propelled by the higher cost of energy, we would see alternative energy sources being developed.

Sounds like a direct contradiction. In my opinion, if your goal is to see alternative sources of energy developed and, ultimately, mass produced and therefore decrease in price, there would be incentives necessary for enterprises to enter the market of alternatives in the first place.

It seems to me as if your strict opposition to government programmes or subsidies, and a factual promotion of government action that would lower the cost of conventional energy from coal and oil would merely defeat any natural incentive for capitalization of the huge investments needed to develop alternative sources.

Of course, the result will be serious and lasting economic harm to the country.

:wink:

0 Replies

I specifically challenge the notion that less energy is used in the pumping of oil, shipping that oil to a refinery, refining that oil, shipping it to it's destination, and then finally using it; then transporting energy through lines. I don't see how this could possibly be true. And I wonder if you have any actual facts to back up your assertion that it costs less to ship oil-based fuels then to produce energy directly. How are you quantifying the fuel costs for the transmission of the physical oil and gasoline? It doesn't just magically get to the gas station from the well in Saudi Arabia.

I also specifically challenge this:

Quote:

Wind power (and solar too) is generated in much smaller quantities by the basic devices involwed; and both are highly location dependent for their sources. This means that, per unit of energy produced, much more investment will be required in transmission lines; and much more land will be set aside for their construction. This too is no insignificant factor in view of the very limited reserve capacity in our electrical power distribution network.

Many wind and solar units will be installed directly on the buildings they are to power; this dramatically cuts down the need for transmission.

Efficiency is as important as making as much power as possible, yaknow. If my house can be 90% powered by a 30k solar system on the roof, it's much, much more efficient then any other source in terms of energy delivered...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

If I understand correctly, you're saying that drilling is necessary and sensible, and that this together with making use of coal and nuclear energy, it would bring down the cost of petroleum (and therefore gas) as well as energy in general.

Then you go on and argue that, propelled by the higher cost of energy, we would see alternative energy sources being developed.

Sounds like a direct contradiction. In my opinion, if your goal is to see alternative sources of energy developed and, ultimately, mass produced and therefore decrease in price, there would be incentives necessary for enterprises to enter the market of alternatives in the first place.

It seems to me as if your strict opposition to government programmes or subsidies, and a factual promotion of government action that would lower the cost of conventional energy from coal and oil would merely defeat any natural incentive for capitalization of the huge investments needed to develop alternative sources.

Of course, the result will be serious and lasting economic harm to the country.

:wink:

No you have seriously distorted what I wrote. But you already know that. :wink:

I said that we should encourage the rapid application of available low cost sources of energy (domestic petroleum, nuclear and coal) to replace imported petroleum and count on market forces to bring about reductions in the cost of alternative sources. This has the short term (10 years or so) potential to directly displace some imported petroleum; make enough natural gas available as a power source for vehicles to displace nearly half of our current petroleum imports; and wean the country from the massive exports of wealth attendant to our energy imports. Later as wind and solar devices become competitive (they most certainly are not so now) we can stimulate their rapid application through preferential tax policies. I am opposed to carbon taxes or any of the cap and trade programs now proposed by the Democrats.

Again our policy should be focused on achieving energy independence and the deployment of ample sources of cheap energy. If we have abundant, cheap energy we can solve all the other problems. If we don't have it we won't be able to do anything. In achieving this or any other policy, I would prefer to see as little government intrusion in these activities as possible.

Meanwhile Cyclo can contiunue to fantasize about windmills on office buildings and other like imaginings -- they don't exist to any significant extent now (total wind generation currently delivers well under 1% of our electrical power) and none are currently planned. (Elementary safety considerations would preclude, or at least severely limit, the installation of large turbines on buildings in cities.) There are many good ideas out there for more energy efficient structures and even local generation of small quantities of energy from so called renewable sources for direct application in the structure on which they are mounted. However these things will simply serve to reduce the growth of new power demands in an expanding economy. They have no meaningful potential to replace a significant part of our baseload generation capacity.

For those obsessed with AGW we can voluntarily agree to limit our per capita emissions of GHG to (say) those of Canada (an oh so virtuous signatory of the Kyoto agreement).

0 Replies

How did I distort what you said? You specifically stated that, in your opinion, the market price for petroleum was inflated and should be brought down.

That seems to be in direct contradiction to a point that you have made a while ago, arguing that CAFE standards are artificially imposed, and that it would be much more effective to let the market take care of fuel efficiency by imposing gasoline taxes that would change consumer behaviour.

Now we are at a point where we see exactly that happening. Car sales are at a 16 year low. Automakers stopped producing whole lines of gas guzzlers and are planning to produce more fuel effective cars. People are carpooling and switching to public transportation.

In that light, specifically this paragraph doesn't seem to make sense:

georgeob1 wrote:

Later as wind and solar devices become competitive (they most certainly are not so now) we can stimulate their rapid application through preferential tax policies. I am opposed to carbon taxes or any of the cap and trade programs now proposed by the Democrats.

What's the point of stimulating the application of renewables after they've become competitive? Why are you opposed to carbon taxes (other than because of the name), when your desire would be a switch to renewable, cheap energy in the future?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Aw, I feel so bad for those poor poor oil companies. With all those difficulties, it must be real hard to make any PROFIT at all.

Are you complaining that they are making a profit, or do you believe that they are making to much profit?

Tell us all, what percentage of profit are they allowed to make, according to you?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

How did I distort what you said? You specifically stated that, in your opinion, the market price for petroleum was inflated and should be brought down.

That seems to be in direct contradiction to a point that you have made a while ago, arguing that CAFE standards are artificially imposed, and that it would be much more effective to let the market take care of fuel efficiency by imposing gasoline taxes that would change consumer behaviour.

No, what I wrote - or at least intended - was that the current market price for petroleum is likely a bit inflated (though still undergoing a secular rise due to growing demand worldwide) and likely will come down some of its own accord, in a natural process that will likely be accelerated by our actions (and those of others) to uncrease domestic production & extraction. However the core problem for this country is the massive wealth transfer that is resulting from our excessive (and growing) dependence on imported petroleum.

I do believe we are in an era of lasting higher relative prices for petroleum, and that it will indeed stimulate beneficial responses here and elsewhere to increase efficiency and the beneficial use of alternative fuels. I also believe that government action in response to these new conditions should focus on the economic aspects of the situation (and not the AGW frenzy) and on enabling - not leading or directing - the needed response. Again, if we have abundant, cheap energy we can solve all the other problems, environmental, social and otherwise. If we don't have that, we won't be able to do anything.

old europe wrote:

Now we are at a point where we see exactly that happening. Car sales are at a 16 year low. Automakers stopped producing whole lines of gas guzzlers and are planning to produce more fuel effective cars. People are carpooling and switching to public transportation.

In that light, specifically this paragraph doesn't seem to make sense:

georgeob1 wrote:
Later as wind and solar devices become competitive (they most certainly are not so now) we can stimulate their rapid application through preferential tax policies. I am opposed to carbon taxes or any of the cap and trade programs now proposed by the Democrats.

What's the point of stimulating the application of renewables after they've become competitive? Why are you opposed to carbon taxes (other than because of the name), when your desire would be a switch to renewable, cheap energy in the future?

In the first place, I believe that most government programs designed to "stimulate" beneficial behaviors (or at least behaviors desired by often misguided politicians) usually either backfire or end up dominated by unanticipated second order effects. Worse still, they usually remain in effect long after the problem they were designed to correct goes away.

There is ample evidence around us all that points to the gathering interest and investment in renewable sources of energy and the application of more energy efficient ways to maintain modern lifestyles and economies. These (here at least) are largely the result of natural market forces - certainly nothing our government has done. I believe these spontaneous reactions to new economic conditions will do the job of getting us economically feasible alternative energy far quicker and more effectively than will any government program. On the contrary, I believe the government programs advocated by the self-styled "progressive" political forces here will impeded the process, not advance it. Worse they show the possibility of seriously injuring the economy that ultimately we will depend on to advance and sustain the needed changes.

I oppose a carbon tax (or any of the largely equivalent emissions rights trading schemes) simply because they - in my view - will suppress beneficial economic activity more effectively than they will accelerate a transformation process that is already underway and doesn't require them. Moreover, I am concerned about the irrational contradictions that infect the political actors involved in the process here. Opposition to nuclear power (even that carefully hidden behind unattainable preconditions, such as Obama's) is a completely irrational component of a strategy that would impose the heavy hand of government to punish the current pillars of our economy, leaving us only the "alternative" fantasies so earnestly embraced by people who are largely illiterate when it comes to the engineering and scientific realities involved.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

old europe wrote:
How did I distort what you said? You specifically stated that, in your opinion, the market price for petroleum was inflated and should be brought down.

That seems to be in direct contradiction to a point that you have made a while ago, arguing that CAFE standards are artificially imposed, and that it would be much more effective to let the market take care of fuel efficiency by imposing gasoline taxes that would change consumer behaviour.
No, what I wrote - or at least intended - was that the current market price for petroleum is likely a bit inflated (though still undergoing a secular rise due to growing demand worldwide) and likely will come down some of its own accord, in a natural process that will likely be accelerated by our actions (and those of others) to uncrease domestic production & extraction. However the core problem for this country is the massive wealth transfer that is resulting from our excessive (and growing) dependence on imported petroleum.

Okay, fair enough. I'm with you on the issue of petroleum market prices.

I'm not sure where you're going with the point of "massive wealth transfer". Is this the argument that has come up more often recently that America shouldn't bankroll repressive regimes? Or are you saying that the money spent on oil imports would be better invested domestically?

georgeob1 wrote:

I do believe we are in an era of lasting higher relative prices for petroleum, and that it will indeed stimulate beneficial responses here and elsewhere to increase efficiency and the beneficial use of alternative fuels. I also believe that government action in response to these new conditions should focus on the economic aspects of the situation (and not the AGW frenzy) and on enabling - not leading or directing - the needed response.

I'm mostly with you right up to this point. Thing is that we probably disagree about what constitutes "enabling" and what constitutes "leading or directing".

I would describe the German Renewable Energy Sources Act as government action that was enabling increased development of renewables. It allows private citizens to sell back energy into the grid (previously difficult due to the dominance of big providers) and sets a guaranteed tariff. The tariffs go down every year to encourage more efficient production. At the same time, it allows people to invest a rather large sum into renewables, as it gives them a dependable timeframe for amortisation.

I think this is an excellent example of "smart subsidies" that will come down over time and thereby spur growth in the free market, rather than hampering development by having people depend on subsidies.

I'm sure you're example for "enabling" energy independence would be the government stepping aside and opening up protected areas for drilling...

georgeob1 wrote:

Again, if we have abundant, cheap energy we can solve all the other problems, environmental, social and otherwise. If we don't have that, we won't be able to do anything.

Mhm. Thanks for the empty rhetoric, george...

georgeob1 wrote:

In the first place, I believe that most government programs designed to "stimulate" beneficial behaviors (or at least behaviors desired by often misguided politicians) usually either backfire or end up dominated by unanticipated second order effects. Worse still, they usually remain in effect long after the problem they were designed to correct goes away.

Sure. Has happened. However, I'd argue that the inaction of a government can also have very negative effects. See, for reference, the current situation of US automakers who, for years, where developing and selling cars based on the assumption that oil would be plentiful and cheap, and that the government wouldn't do anything to artificially increase the price of gas in the future.

Compare that to European or Asian automakers who are operating in markets that forced them early on, based on heavy taxation of gas in those countries, to develop more fuel efficient cars.

I'd say that the Bush admin's "the American economy first, worries about the climate later" stance has backfired and ended up dominated by unanticipated second order effects.

georgeob1 wrote:

There is ample evidence around us all that points to the gathering interest and investment in renewable sources of energy and the application of more energy efficient ways to maintain modern lifestyles and economies. These (here at least) are largely the result of natural market forces - certainly nothing our government has done.

Certainly, but I don't think the situation is very different in Europe. The development in the sector of renewable energy was and is largely driven by market forces. However, the market is indirectly influenced by government action - taxation of gas on the one hand, incentives to invest into renewables on the other hand.

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe these spontaneous reactions to new economic conditions will do the job of getting us economically feasible alternative energy far quicker and more effectively than will any government program. On the contrary, I believe the government programs advocated by the self-styled "progressive" political forces here will impeded the process, not advance it. Worse they show the possibility of seriously injuring the economy that ultimately we will depend on to advance and sustain the needed changes.

I don't think that an entirely free, unregulated market is the best way to get things done in a short amount of time. Just as you're (rightfully) not willing to completely rely on the government, I think it's rather obvious that there's no reason to blindly trust the free market, either. A look at the current situation of the "free market" should be enough to reach that conclusion...

georgeob1 wrote:

I oppose a carbon tax (or any of the largely equivalent emissions rights trading schemes) simply because they - in my view - will suppress beneficial economic activity more effectively than they will accelerate a transformation process that is already underway and doesn't require them.

I don't understand. Are you using the term "carbon tax" as a synonym for a cap-and-trade plan? Well, yeah, those haven't been too effective so far.

That's different from old-style taxes, though. Specifically taxing behaviour that is undesirable (even though I guess you take issue with the "carbon" part of any kind of carbon tax), and subsidizing/giving tax breaks for behaviour that is desirable.

And yes, the trick is in deciding what we deem desirable or undesirable.

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover, I am concerned about the irrational contradictions that infect the political actors involved in the process here. Opposition to nuclear power (even that carefully hidden behind unattainable preconditions, such as Obama's) is a completely irrational component of a strategy that would impose the heavy hand of government to punish the current pillars of our economy, leaving us only the "alternative" fantasies so earnestly embraced by people who are largely illiterate when it comes to the engineering and scientific realities involved.

That's some heavy rhetoric again.

I'll have to admit that I don't come down in favour of nuclear energy. However, I can see the point where it might be necessary as a technology to bridge the gap between current technologies and a situation where we could rely more effectively on renewables.

I see that point of view reflected in Obama's energy plan and I'm quite happy with that. It's not as radical as Edward's stance on nuclear power, it acknowledges the value nuclear power has, but also addresses the issues.

For me, the whole debate about Yucca Mountain doesn't seem to be as central as it seems to be in the States. That's probably due to the long history of that particular project, and also a clear case of "not in my backyard".

I do understand those concerns, and I admit that the same reasons are the basis for my tentative opposition to nuclear power.

America has the luxury of building these facilities in areas that are, essentially, nobody's immediate backyard. I'd assume that opposition would just for that reason would be much lower than in densely populated countries.

At the same time, it would seem honest to acknowledge that the billions of dollars of investments into e.g. Yucca Mountain represent, at least partly, a direct subsidy of nuclear power (the other part being paid for by those who would store nuclear waste in those facilities and therefore, ultimately, by the consumer).

0 Replies

I hope everyone understands that Obama's advice to put more air in your tires will cause the tire to
wear out the center treads quicker thus causing an unsafe condition and you may not pass inspection.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Images/email/080208_tiregauge2.jpg

My advise is that you to buy an air gauge from McCain and use it to maintain
the air pressure that is correct for your specific tires and vehicle that you own.

.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

I hope everyone understands that Obama's advice to put more air in your tires will cause the tire to
wear out the center treads quicker thus causing an unsafe condition and you may not pass inspection.

I don't think that you can back that up - that having your tires properly inflated causes "an unsafe condition".

I think you're just making **** up.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
I hope everyone understands that Obama's advice to put more air in your tires will cause the tire to
wear out the center treads quicker thus causing an unsafe condition and you may not pass inspection.

I don't think that you can back that up - that having your tires properly inflated causes "an unsafe condition".

I think you're just making **** up.

You just proved that you can't read for ****!

Putting MORE air in your tires (over inflating them) will cause the problems I noted.

This is why I added the following advice:

My advise is that you to buy an air gauge from McCain and use it to maintain
the air pressure that is correct for your specific tires and vehicle that you own.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

Putting MORE air in your tires (over inflating them) will cause the problems I noted.

It would be pretty idiotic to assume that Obama recommended overinflating your tires. And yet that was the assumption you were working of.

<shrugs>

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

H2O_MAN wrote:
Putting MORE air in your tires (over inflating them) will cause the problems I noted.

It would be pretty idiotic to assume that Obama recommended overinflating your tires.

It would be idiotic for you, me, anyone to assume Obama knows anything about maintaining his own vehicle.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

old europe wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
Putting MORE air in your tires (over inflating them) will cause the problems I noted.

It would be pretty idiotic to assume that Obama recommended overinflating your tires.

It would be idiotic for you, me, anyone to assume Obama knows anything about maintaining his own vehicle.

Apparently, he knows more about it than the people who were making fun of him for suggesting that properly inflating your tires and getting regular tune-ups could save more gas than what would be gained from more off-shore drilling.

But hey, we've already been through this a couple of pages back, and there's really no point in repeating again and again what has already been said.

If you want to get one of McCain's little "Obama Tire Pressure Gauges", go ahead. I'm sure he needs all the support he can get, and I'm also sure you'd be proud to have a gimmick that you can show around.

Even better: if you're going to use it the way Obama suggested - to keep your tires properly inflated and thereby save gas - I'm sure everybody would be happy. You'd have to pay less at the pump, and domestic drilling could be limited to reasonable amount.

Get your Obamanometer!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know