Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

0 Reply report Sat 16 May, 2009 12:17 am But if Parados thinks that the Chinese are the only problem, he hasn't reckoned with the increasing number of Moderate Democrats who are adamantly opposed to a cap and trade system.

Note:
0 Replies
Previous • Post: # 3,651,897 • Next genoves

0 Reply report Sat 16 May, 2009 12:18 am But if Parados thinks that the Chinese are the only problem, he hasn't reckoned with the increasing number of Moderates who are adamantly opposed to a cap and trade system.

OPINION MAY 15, 2009 Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade
No honest person thinks this will make a dent in climate change.
By MITCH DANIELS -Governor- Indiana.
This week Congress is set to release the details of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill that purports to combat global warming by setting strict limits on carbon emissions. I'm not a candidate for any office -- now or ever again -- and I've approached the "climate change" debate with an open-mind. But it's clear to me that the nation, and in particular Indiana, my home state, will be terribly disserved by this cap-and-trade policy on the verge of passage in the House.

The largest scientific and economic questions are being addressed by others, so I will confine myself to reporting about how all this looks from the receiving end of the taxes, restrictions and mandates Congress is now proposing.

Quite simply, it looks like imperialism. This bill would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers -- California, Massachusetts and New York -- seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly.

The Waxman-Markey legislation would more than double electricity bills in Indiana. Years of reform in taxation, regulation and infrastructure-building would be largely erased at a stroke. In recent years, Indiana has led the nation in capturing international investment, repatriating dollars spent on foreign goods or oil and employing Americans with them. Waxman-Markey seems designed to reverse that flow. "Closed: Gone to China" signs would cover Indiana's stores and factories.

Our state's share of national income has been slipping for decades, but it is offset in part by living costs some 8% lower than the national average. Doubled utility bills for low-income Hoosiers would be an especially cruel consequence of the Waxman bill. Forgive us for not being impressed at danglings of welfare-like repayments to some of those still employed, with some fraction of the dollars extracted from our state.

And for what? No honest estimate pretends to suggest that a U.S. cap-and-trade regime will move the world's thermometer by so much as a tenth of a degree a half century from now. My fellow citizens are being ordered to accept impoverishment for a policy that won't save a single polar bear.

We are told that although China, India and others show no signs of joining in this dismal process, we will eventually induce their participation by "setting an example." Watching the impending indigence of the Midwest, and the flow of jobs from our shores to theirs, our friends in Asia and the Third World are far more likely to choose any other path but ours.

Politicians in Washington speak of a reawakened appreciation for manufacturing and American competitiveness. But under their policy, those who make real products will suffer. Already we observe the piranha swarm of green lobbyists wangling special exemptions, subsidies and side deals. The ordinary Hoosier was not invited to this party, and can expect at most only table scraps at the service entrance.

No one in Indiana is arguing for the status quo: Hoosiers have been eager to pursue a new energy future. We rocketed from nowhere to national leadership in biofuels production in the last four years. We were the No. 1 state in the growth of wind power in 2008. And we have embarked on an aggressive energy-conservation program, indubitably the most cost-effective means of limiting CO2.

Most importantly, we are out to be the world leader in making clean coal -- including the potential for carbon capture and sequestration. The world's first commercial-scale clean coal power plant is under construction in our state, and the first modern coal-to-natural gas plant is coming right behind it. We eagerly accept the responsibility to develop alternatives to the punitive, inequitable taxation of cap and trade.

Our president has commendably committed himself to "government that works." But his imperial climate-change policy is government that cannot work, and we humble colonials out here in the provinces have no choice but to petition for relief from the Crown's impositions.

0 Replies

Parados posts bovine excrement. He bloviates but gives NO link. Here is the truth about BO's quixotic dream.

Obama energy options may be long wait
Technology costly, scarce
By Amanda DeBard | Wednesday, May 13, 2009

President Obama's plan to move quickly to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources relies on technology that analysts agree is neither affordable nor available on a commercial scale and won't be for many years to come.

Expensive, small-scale pilot projects are under way that convert vegetation into fuel for cars and capture carbon dioxide before it is released into the air from coal-burning power plants. But these prototypes have not been proved at levels that would make even a dent in the U.S. appetite for fossil fuels, casting doubt on the viability of the president's plans.

Still, the administration continues to promote policies that assume that these pilot programs will soon become large-scale projects and is seeking funds to bring that day closer.

"It's promoting a vision that no one knows what the true cost will be and [whether] these technologies will succeed on a large scale," said Bryan K. Mignone, a climate and energy analyst at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

"The administration wants a solution fast to the technology problems," said Nathaniel Greene, director of renewable-energy policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But a solution might not emerge as rapidly as the administration would like. Mr. Greene said energy specialists joke that the "next generation" of biofuels is five years away from commercial use - and has been that way since the 1980s. Despite some promising breakthroughs in ethanol, he said, it will be years before the next-generation fuels are widely available.

It also will be years before commercial-scale "carbon capture and sequestration" technology will be cheap enough to take carbon dioxide from smokestacks and pump it into underground storage sites. The most recent estimates suggest that such technology would not be ready for initial commercial use until 2015 and not widely in use before 2025.

Some critics say the climate legislation drafted by Democrats and pending in the House would kill the push for carbon capture and sequestration by allowing older power plants to buy their way out of upgrading their facilities by purchasing permits to emit higher levels of carbon while using existing technology.

The administration's stated goal is to end the nation's dependence on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela by 2020 and to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent, or to 1990 levels, by the same year. Next-generation ethanol and carbon capture and sequestration are key to achieving those goals -- that is, once the technology is developed.

The administration can force the technology forward and alter carbon methods by sending price signals to polluters, said Daniel J. Weiss, a clean-energy and climate specialist at the liberal Center for American Progress. He said the imposition of a carbon fee would shave years off the time it would take to produce commercial-scale ethanol and carbon-capture technology.

0 Replies

Parados doesn't have the slightest idea to do with something like this that throws the Goristas into a panic:

It's turning out that the biggest problem with carbon taxes is political reality. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has just announced he will delay implementing his trademark cap-and-trade emissions trading proposal until at least 2011. Mr. Rudd's March proposal would have imposed total carbon permit costs (taxes) of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (US$8.5 billion) in the first two years, starting in 2010. This would have increased consumer prices by about 1.1% and shaved 0.1% off annual GDP growth until at least 2050, according to Australia's Treasury. Support has fallen among business groups and individuals who earlier professed enthusiasm for Aussie cap and trade. Green gains were negligible; Australia accounts for only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The reversal, or "backflip," has caused Mr. Rudd much embarrassment. He may still push ahead with legislation in some form, as he promised when running in the 2007 election. But it's becoming clear the proposal won't be a shoo-in despite all the votes Mr. Rudd won when he campaigned as an anti-carbon apostle.

This is yet another example of politicians elsewhere cashing in politically on the current anti-carbon enthusiasm, only to discover that support diminishes as the real-world costs become clear.
*********************************************************************

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
To suggest that wind power could provide close to 80% of the electrical generation in this country in 10 years is utter nonsense, Parados.

The funny part of it is okie. I used the word "if" in my statement. You however made a claim about what Obama said and have NOT provided a source.

I have provided it before. The source is Obama himself, in the debates. Obama said he could wean the country off of cartel oil in 10 years, and the solution in doing it was wind, solar, and geothermal. I think this is but one example of many statements that Obama made that the press ignored, and never analyzed to determine whether they had any basis in fact. Obama was given a pass, because he was the messiah. I am simply trying to hold Obama accountable for what amounts to incompetent statements and falsehoods.

Quote:

You are arguing a strawman in that you made up something from Obama and are now arguing he can't achieve something he never said.

Please provide your source that says Obama will replace 20% of ALL energy with renewables. I find where he is talking about electrical.

I have provided the links before. Check out the debate transcripts and you will find what I am talking about.

Quote:

Under the bill, the amount of the U.S. electricity supply coming from renewable energy resources would gradually increase to 4 percent by 2012, 8 percent by 2015, 12 percent by 2018, 16 percent by 2020 and 20 percent by 2039.

So, there is the proof that his own policies therefore have no realistic projection of replacing cartel oil in 10 years, as he claimed. Obama knows diddly about energy, and never did, and probably never will.

2 Replies

@okie,

By the way, some review of Obama's campaign claims included 20% renewables by 2020, so now I see thats slipped to 2039, another 19 years. But the weaning off of cartel oil in 10 years was the whopper I have been talking about.

0 Replies

@okie,

Care to point out where Obama said that in the debates?

okie wrote:

I have provided it before. The source is Obama himself, in the debates. Obama said he could wean the country off of cartel oil in 10 years, and the solution in doing it was wind, solar, and geothermal.

No, the debates don't say what you said originally.

okie wrote:

Which applies to Obama's plan to use geothermal, wind, and solar to wean us off of OPEC oil in 10 years, as he promised.

http://able2know.org/topic/44061-676#post-3650773

First debate

Obama wrote:

We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States, in Ohio and Michigan, instead of Japan and South Korea.

second debate

Obama wrote:

So we've got to deal with that right away. That's why I've called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year's time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

okie wrote:

Which applies to Obama's plan to use geothermal, wind, and solar to wean us off of OPEC oil in 10 years, as he promised.

It seems okie created a strawman...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC
Half of OPEC countries are NOT in the Middle East.

Quote:

OBAMA: I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela.

third debate
Still no mention of OPEC in that 10 years time frame.

Perhaps you are confusing Obama with McCain okie.

McCain wrote:

So the point is with nuclear power, with wind, tide, solar, natural gas, with development of flex fuel, hybrid, clean coal technology, clean coal technology is key in the heartland of America that's hurting rather badly.

So I think we can easily, within seven, eight, ten years, if we put our minds to it, we can eliminate our dependence on the places in the world that harm our national security if we don't achieve our independence.

By the way.. we only get about 18% of our oil from the Middle east

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
and NONE of our coal. Since oil only makes up 40% of your graph. Your 20% of the total energy is a strawman. Obama never said it. You made it up so you could argue against it.
Until you provide an actual quote from Obama that states 20% of our TOTAL electrical and vehicle and heating energy needs to be renewables and all of that renewable MUST come from solar and geothermal there is little doubt that you built a strawman. Obama mentions biofuels as part of his plan to wean the US from MIDDLE EAST oil. Yet you ignored those in your statement and in your graph.

If we go back to your graph and assume it is only electrical energy and the Middle East provides the 18% of the 40% it would mean that in order to wean ourselves off of Mideast oil in your graph the production for solar and geothermal would only have to be 7% of the total.
Your chart currently works out to about 60% efficiency and 3/10ths of a percent of the total. Since it has doubled since your chart that means the capacity only needs to increase by a factor of 10 from it's current production to equal 7% of the total. That means that solar only has to increase slightly faster than it did in 2008 to achieve the goal to eliminate mideast oil from electrical production.

Okie's strawman is 2 part.
1. He changes what Obama said
2. He used outdated data to prove Obama couldn't meet the goal okie made up.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Care to point out where Obama said that in the debates?

okie wrote:

I have provided it before. The source is Obama himself, in the debates. Obama said he could wean the country off of cartel oil in 10 years, and the solution in doing it was wind, solar, and geothermal.

No, the debates don't say what you said originally.

pretty close to it. If you combine Venezuela with Middle East, you have over half of OPEC imports. Technically, you are correct about what Obama said on those occasions, but he is implying that we need to quit our reliance upon politically unstable countries, and countries subject to terrorist influence. So although countries like Nigeria, Algeria, and Angola are in Africa, they have similar influences that cause them to be very unstable politically. Also, part of the reason to want to become free of Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil, is obviously and precisely because of the confiscatory prices demanded by OPEC, implied but not spelled out by Obama. But even if you only include Middle Eastern and Venezuela, the stated objective is still quite unsupportable by any of his solutions.

Quote:

okie wrote:
Which applies to Obama's plan to use geothermal, wind, and solar to wean us off of OPEC oil in 10 years, as he promised.

http://able2know.org/topic/44061-676#post-3650773

First debate

Obama wrote:
We have to have energy independence, so I've put forward a plan to make sure that, in 10 years' time, we have freed ourselves from dependence on Middle Eastern oil by increasing production at home, but most importantly by starting to invest in alternative energy, solar, wind, biodiesel, making sure that we're developing the fuel-efficient cars of the future right here in the United States, in Ohio and Michigan, instead of Japan and South Korea.

Okay so he also mentioned biodiesel and more fuel efficient cars in this instance. There is little to no evidence that those factors can impact the energy mix, parados. They are hardly worth mentioning.

Quote:

second debate

Obama wrote:
So we've got to deal with that right away. That's why I've called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year's time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

okie wrote:
Which applies to Obama's plan to use geothermal, wind, and solar to wean us off of OPEC oil in 10 years, as he promised.

It seems okie created a strawman...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC
Half of OPEC countries are NOT in the Middle East.

When people hear "Middle East," they think "OPEC." Alot of the idea of wanting to become non-dependent on Middle East oil is to not be held hostage to confiscatory pricing by OPEC. But either way, Obama's plan is still just as unrealistic in my opinion. He has no evidence at all that his plan is workable.

Quote:

Quote:
OBAMA: I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela.

third debate
Still no mention of OPEC in that 10 years time frame.

So what, his plan is just as unrealistic. He presents no evidence by a credible energy expert or source to support what he says.

Quote:

Perhaps you are confusing Obama with McCain okie.

McCain wrote:
So the point is with nuclear power, with wind, tide, solar, natural gas, with development of flex fuel, hybrid, clean coal technology, clean coal technology is key in the heartland of America that's hurting rather badly.

So I think we can easily, within seven, eight, ten years, if we put our minds to it, we can eliminate our dependence on the places in the world that harm our national security if we don't achieve our independence.

At least McCain mentions nuclear, a biggee typically left out by Obama, not emphasized or pushed. And McCain at least believes in some drilling, and coal.

Quote:

By the way.. we only get about 18% of our oil from the Middle east

But he also mentions Venezuela, which is another 8 or 9% of our oil imports, so now we are talking over 25% of the oil imports, or over 15% of our total consumption.

Quote:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
and NONE of our coal. Since oil only makes up 40% of your graph. Your 20% of the total energy is a strawman. Obama never said it. You made it up so you could argue against it.
Until you provide an actual quote from Obama that states 20% of our TOTAL electrical and vehicle and heating energy needs to be renewables and all of that renewable MUST come from solar and geothermal there is little doubt that you built a strawman. Obama mentions biofuels as part of his plan to wean the US from MIDDLE EAST oil. Yet you ignored those in your statement and in your graph.

I think you misquote me. I was referring to Obama's stated goal of 20% of the electrical power output, a separate issue or a side issue, which in itself pretty much debunks the rest of his assertions.

Quote:

If we go back to your graph and assume it is only electrical energy and the Middle East provides the 18% of the 40% it would mean that in order to wean ourselves off of Mideast oil in your graph the production for solar and geothermal would only have to be 7% of the total.
Your chart currently works out to about 60% efficiency and 3/10ths of a percent of the total. Since it has doubled since your chart that means the capacity only needs to increase by a factor of 10 from it's current production to equal 7% of the total. That means that solar only has to increase slightly faster than it did in 2008 to achieve the goal to eliminate mideast oil from electrical production.

I don't follow any of that reasoning at all, Parados, I think you have strayed off on a tangent.

Quote:

Okie's strawman is 2 part.
1. He changes what Obama said
2. He used outdated data to prove Obama couldn't meet the goal okie made up.

I capture the essense of what Obama said. If you want to parse it and split hairs instead of the perceived intent of what Obama said, fine, Obama's plan is still just as impractical. Outdated data, another "strawman" as you love to call it, the data, whether 2006 or 2008, are approximately the same in terms of the reasoning. I cited 2006 because that is what I found. 2008 doesn't change the reasoning or the result much at all in any way.

Here is a site that I found that has alot of Obama's quotes on energy, showing how unrealistic they are.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm

And in regard to biodiesel, one of Obama's magic bullets, there is little evidence this technology is the wave of the future, in fact some think it takes more energy to create than it produces. So why not just burn the fossil fuel directly and circumvent the wasteful exercise of converting it into bio-fuel, and losing part of the energy in the process? I know the farmers like it, but why throw rocks through windows to help glass repair companies, it makes no sense? Now, maybe more research will find a way to create biofuels more efficiently, but that is not an immediate option, that needs more research to even prove if it is viable.

In regard to improving gas mileage, great, but I doubt seriously that will make any dent in energy consumption, given the growth of the population and more cars on the road.

You can try to split hairs, but the conclusion is the same, Obama's energy plan is unrealistic in terms of what he says it will accomplish.

3 Replies

Okie- Check this out. Parados can't rebut this so he won't.

Parados doesn't have the slightest idea to do with something like this that throws the Goristas into a panic:

It's turning out that the biggest problem with carbon taxes is political reality. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has just announced he will delay implementing his trademark cap-and-trade emissions trading proposal until at least 2011. Mr. Rudd's March proposal would have imposed total carbon permit costs (taxes) of 11.5 billion Australian dollars (US$8.5 billion) in the first two years, starting in 2010. This would have increased consumer prices by about 1.1% and shaved 0.1% off annual GDP growth until at least 2050, according to Australia's Treasury. Support has fallen among business groups and individuals who earlier professed enthusiasm for Aussie cap and trade. Green gains were negligible; Australia accounts for only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The reversal, or "backflip," has caused Mr. Rudd much embarrassment. He may still push ahead with legislation in some form, as he promised when running in the 2007 election. But it's becoming clear the proposal won't be a shoo-in despite all the votes Mr. Rudd won when he campaigned as an anti-carbon apostle.

This is yet another example of politicians elsewhere cashing in politically on the current anti-carbon enthusiasm, only to discover that support diminishes as the real-world costs become clear.
*********************************************************************

0 Replies

Okie--Check this out. Parados cowers in fear when he sees facts like those below, so he pretends it never happened.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama's aides are trying to manage the world's expectations of what he can deliver. In an interview last week, Todd Stern, the top U.S. negotiator of international climate-change agreements, pointed to the recent economic-stimulus package, which contained tens of billions of dollars for low-carbon energy, and moves by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles, as evidence that the new administration is moving swiftly to combat climate change.

At the same time, Mr. Stern, who will be leading this week's talks, said he is telling fellow diplomats that "what the U.S. is going to do in terms of commitments to reducing greenhouse gases is going to fundamentally be framed by what Congress does." This week's talks aren't likely to produce any breakthroughs, he said, but rather a chance for governments to engage one another in a more informal, intimate way than is possible during the larger, noisier proceedings organized by the United Nations.

"I'm not actually making promises that are unaligned with what's going on" on Capitol Hill, Mr. Stern says. Referring to Kyoto -- a pact he helped fashion as a member of the Clinton administration but that President Bill Clinton never submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification -- Mr. Stern says, "International action unaligned with our domestic congressional action environment is a route we've tried before, and it didn't work."
*******************************

1 Reply

Okie--Facts like those below panic Parados. He just does not know how to begin to rebut them.

Obama energy options may be long wait
Technology costly, scarce
By Amanda DeBard | Wednesday, May 13, 2009

President Obama's plan to move quickly to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources relies on technology that analysts agree is neither affordable nor available on a commercial scale and won't be for many years to come.

Expensive, small-scale pilot projects are under way that convert vegetation into fuel for cars and capture carbon dioxide before it is released into the air from coal-burning power plants. But these prototypes have not been proved at levels that would make even a dent in the U.S. appetite for fossil fuels, casting doubt on the viability of the president's plans.

Still, the administration continues to promote policies that assume that these pilot programs will soon become large-scale projects and is seeking funds to bring that day closer.

"It's promoting a vision that no one knows what the true cost will be and [whether] these technologies will succeed on a large scale," said Bryan K. Mignone, a climate and energy analyst at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

"The administration wants a solution fast to the technology problems," said Nathaniel Greene, director of renewable-energy policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But a solution might not emerge as rapidly as the administration would like. Mr. Greene said energy specialists joke that the "next generation" of biofuels is five years away from commercial use - and has been that way since the 1980s. Despite some promising breakthroughs in ethanol, he said, it will be years before the next-generation fuels are widely available.

It also will be years before commercial-scale "carbon capture and sequestration" technology will be cheap enough to take carbon dioxide from smokestacks and pump it into underground storage sites. The most recent estimates suggest that such technology would not be ready for initial commercial use until 2015 and not widely in use before 2025.

Some critics say the climate legislation drafted by Democrats and pending in the House would kill the push for carbon capture and sequestration by allowing older power plants to buy their way out of upgrading their facilities by purchasing permits to emit higher levels of carbon while using existing technology.

The administration's stated goal is to end the nation's dependence on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela by 2020 and to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent, or to 1990 levels, by the same year. Next-generation ethanol and carbon capture and sequestration are key to achieving those goals -- that is, once the technology is developed.

The administration can force the technology forward and alter carbon methods by sending price signals to polluters, said Daniel J. Weiss, a clean-energy and climate specialist at the liberal Center for American Progress. He said the imposition of a carbon fee would shave years off the time it would take to produce commercial-scale ethanol and carbon-capture technology.

0 Replies

@genoves,

Pie in the sky meets reality headon, genoves.

0 Replies

Here is another fascinating piece of evidence, Okie--I WAIT PATIENTLY TO SEE IF PARADOS IS SO COWARDLY OR STUPID( 0ne or the other) THAT HE CANNOT AT LEAST TRY TO REBUT THESE COMMENTS. If he does not, no matter--They W I L L S T A N D UNREBUTTED.

OPINION MAY 15, 2009 Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade
No honest person thinks this will make a dent in climate change.
By MITCH DANIELS -Governor- Indiana.
This week Congress is set to release the details of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill that purports to combat global warming by setting strict limits on carbon emissions. I'm not a candidate for any office -- now or ever again -- and I've approached the "climate change" debate with an open-mind. But it's clear to me that the nation, and in particular Indiana, my home state, will be terribly disserved by this cap-and-trade policy on the verge of passage in the House.

The largest scientific and economic questions are being addressed by others, so I will confine myself to reporting about how all this looks from the receiving end of the taxes, restrictions and mandates Congress is now proposing.

Quite simply, it looks like imperialism. This bill would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers -- California, Massachusetts and New York -- seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly.

The Waxman-Markey legislation would more than double electricity bills in Indiana. Years of reform in taxation, regulation and infrastructure-building would be largely erased at a stroke. In recent years, Indiana has led the nation in capturing international investment, repatriating dollars spent on foreign goods or oil and employing Americans with them. Waxman-Markey seems designed to reverse that flow. "Closed: Gone to China" signs would cover Indiana's stores and factories.

Our state's share of national income has been slipping for decades, but it is offset in part by living costs some 8% lower than the national average. Doubled utility bills for low-income Hoosiers would be an especially cruel consequence of the Waxman bill. Forgive us for not being impressed at danglings of welfare-like repayments to some of those still employed, with some fraction of the dollars extracted from our state.

And for what? No honest estimate pretends to suggest that a U.S. cap-and-trade regime will move the world's thermometer by so much as a tenth of a degree a half century from now. My fellow citizens are being ordered to accept impoverishment for a policy that won't save a single polar bear.

We are told that although China, India and others show no signs of joining in this dismal process, we will eventually induce their participation by "setting an example." Watching the impending indigence of the Midwest, and the flow of jobs from our shores to theirs, our friends in Asia and the Third World are far more likely to choose any other path but ours.

Politicians in Washington speak of a reawakened appreciation for manufacturing and American competitiveness. But under their policy, those who make real products will suffer. Already we observe the piranha swarm of green lobbyists wangling special exemptions, subsidies and side deals. The ordinary Hoosier was not invited to this party, and can expect at most only table scraps at the service entrance.

No one in Indiana is arguing for the status quo: Hoosiers have been eager to pursue a new energy future. We rocketed from nowhere to national leadership in biofuels production in the last four years. We were the No. 1 state in the growth of wind power in 2008. And we have embarked on an aggressive energy-conservation program, indubitably the most cost-effective means of limiting CO2.

Most importantly, we are out to be the world leader in making clean coal -- including the potential for carbon capture and sequestration. The world's first commercial-scale clean coal power plant is under construction in our state, and the first modern coal-to-natural gas plant is coming right behind it. We eagerly accept the responsibility to develop alternatives to the punitive, inequitable taxation of cap and trade.

Our president has commendably committed himself to "government that works." But his imperial climate-change policy is government that cannot work, and we humble colonials out here in the provinces have no choice but to petition for relief from the Crown's impositions.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

pretty close to it. If you combine Venezuela with Middle East, you have over half of OPEC imports.

Wow.. Over HALF... Half is not the same thing as ALL.

If I am technically correct that would make YOU technically WRONG.

Quote:

But even if you only include Middle Eastern and Venezuela, the stated objective is still quite unsupportable by any of his solutions.

Actually, it isn't unsupportable. We only need to reduce our oil usage by 7%. If we simply increase wind energy at the SAME rate it increased last year. That means adding the SAME number of wind turbines every year for the next 10 years we will go from .56% of our energy to 8.7% of our energy.
The links I posted earlier show it and based on the graph you posted they are assuming only 60% capacity for installed wind turbines so even if the functional capacity drops we can still get 7% of our energy from wind alone.

Quote:

Okay so he also mentioned biodiesel and more fuel efficient cars in this instance. There is little to no evidence that those factors can impact the energy mix, parados. They are hardly worth mentioning.

Yes, he did mention biodiesel and more fuel efficient cars. And somehow you failed to include them in your mix. Now to hide that fact you pretend it will have no effect on our energy mix.
Let's do some simple math here.
If the average fuel efficiency of our auto fleet is roughly 31 and we increase that to 33, we will achieve 6% savings in per car usage.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html

Quote:

They estimated that the state standard would yield 35 miles per gallon from new cars by about 2016--four years ahead of CAFE.

Of course we could see even greater savings, in the 12% range.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=transportation&id=20067

Then for ethanol, a 2006 study projected it would be 9.4% of our total gasoline usage by 2015.

Quote:

• Ethanol will increase as a percentage of gasoline consumption throughout the project period, reaching 9.4 percent in 2015. This is important because E10, a mixture of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol, can be distributed through regular gasoline pumps and used in regular gasoline-fueled vehicles. The study’s ethanol projections are not dependent on widespread adoption of E85-capable Flex-Fuel Vehicles.
• Although biofuel feedstocks are renewable, there is a limit as to how much can be produced in a growing season, and therefore how much feedstock can be used for biofuel production without causing a disruption in food production.

http://www.mindbranch.com/Biofuels-Production-Supply-R3435-2/
Hardly worth mentioning for you perhaps but the science studies you can buy for $3500 say differently.

Quote:

When people hear "Middle East," they think "OPEC."

I don't think that. I think you mean YOU think that. Or rather you HOPED people would think that so no one would point to the errors in your strawman.

Quote:

But he also mentions Venezuela, which is another 8 or 9% of our oil imports, so now we are talking over 25% of the oil imports, or over 15% of our total consumption.

Wow.. A whole 15%. If we merely increase our auto fuel efficiency by 6% and our ethanol use to 9.4%.... Would you look at that. We just eliminated the imports from the mideast and Venezuela.

Quote:

So what, his plan is just as unrealistic. He presents no evidence by a credible energy expert or source to support what he says.

He doesn't have to present it. It is out there for anyone to find. You don't want to find it however. Please present your credible evidence from the last 2 years about projected ethanol production and projected car efficiency in 10 years. I suspect you won't find any.

Quote:

I don't follow any of that reasoning at all, Parados, I think you have strayed off on a tangent.

How is it a tangent to show that the goal of eliminating mideast oil from our electrical production can be achieved with just wind? You provided that chart AND the statement.

Quote:

I capture the essense of what Obama said. If you want to parse it and split hairs instead of the perceived intent of what Obama said, fine, Obama's plan is still just as impractical. Outdated data, another "strawman" as you love to call it, the data, whether 2006 or 2008, are approximately the same in terms of the reasoning. I cited 2006 because that is what I found. 2008 doesn't change the reasoning or the result much at all in any way.

And yet when I presented the numbers for 2007 and 2008 you didn't change anything? If wind DOUBLED as a source from 2006 to 2008, what do you think that says about the possibility of wind being 10% of our electrical in 10 years? Wind in 2006 made up .56% of our electrical power and in 2008 it made up more than 1.2% of our electrical power. Do you think production and installation of wind turbines will go down over the next 10 years or will it go up?

Quote:

In regard to improving gas mileage, great, but I doubt seriously that will make any dent in energy consumption, given the growth of the population and more cars on the road.

Could you provide some actual science to back this up? Please include projected car fleet mpg and projected car fleet size as well as population projections.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think you misquote me. I was referring to Obama's stated goal of 20% of the electrical power output, a separate issue or a side issue, which in itself pretty much debunks the rest of his assertions.

I don't think I misquoted you.

okie wrote:

Which applies to Obama's plan to use geothermal, wind, and solar to wean us off of OPEC oil in 10 years, as he promised.

http://able2know.org/topic/44061-676#post-3650773

What does OPEC oil really have to do with electrical production in the US?
What does OPEC really have to do with what Obama actually said?

You started your post with a very clear statement that you now claim is not what you said. Laughing

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

the data, whether 2006 or 2008, are approximately the same in terms of the reasoning. I cited 2006 because that is what I found. 2008 doesn't change the reasoning or the result much at all in any way.

US wind capacity 2006 11,603 MW
US wind capacity 2007 16,818 MW
US wind capacity 2008 25,170 megawatts

I would contend that the year DOES matter to the reasoning if you are basing your argument on how small the amount of wind generation is compared to the total. We added almost as much wind capacity in 2008 as existed in 2006.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

US wind capacity 2008 25,170 megawatts

I would contend that the year DOES matter to the reasoning if you are basing your argument on how small the amount of wind generation is compared to the total. We added almost as much wind capacity in 2008 as existed in 2006.

A hundred thousand megawatts of wind capacity is a trivial percentage of America's total electric energy output. It is even more trivial when measured against America's future requirements.

0 Replies

re Ican:
one thousand megawatts is a gigawatt.
one hundred thousand megawatts is a hundred gigawatts.
a typical nuclear power plants output is one gigawatt.
there are 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S.
they produce about 20% of U.S. electricity.
one hundred thousand megawatts of wind power is about equal to total U.S nuclear power. '
that is not trivial.
and as parados stated, installed wind power output is rising rapidly.
at last year's rate, wind power would equal nuclear power in under ten years.
that's not trivial either.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Monterey Jack--You give no links. You say that at last year's rates, wind power would equal nuclear power in under ten years.

Wrong!

0 Replies

Monterey Jack-- It is obvious that you know little about wind power! Try this article from the New York Times. The Times, a left wing source, is acceptable, is it not?

0 Replies

Monterey Jack cannot fit these facts into his ridiculous claims about wind power.
Published: August 26, 2008
When the builders of the Maple Ridge Wind farm spent $320 million to put nearly 200 wind turbines in upstate New York, the idea was to get paid for producing electricity. But at times, regional electric lines have been so congested that Maple Ridge has been forced to shut down even with a brisk wind blowing.

That is a symptom of a broad national problem. Expansive dreams about renewable energy, like Al Gore’s hope of replacing all fossil fuels in a decade, are bumping up against the reality of a power grid that cannot handle the new demands.

The dirty secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not.

The grid today, according to experts, is a system conceived 100 years ago to let utilities prop each other up, reducing blackouts and sharing power in small regions. It resembles a network of streets, avenues and country roads.

“We need an interstate transmission superhighway system,” said Suedeen G. Kelly, a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

While the United States today gets barely 1 percent of its electricity from wind turbines, many experts are starting to think that figure could hit 20 percent.

Achieving that would require moving large amounts of power over long distances, from the windy, lightly populated plains in the middle of the country to the coasts where many people live. Builders are also contemplating immense solar-power stations in the nation’s deserts that would pose the same transmission problems.

The grid’s limitations are putting a damper on such projects already. Gabriel Alonso, chief development officer of Horizon Wind Energy, the company that operates Maple Ridge, said that in parts of Wyoming, a turbine could make 50 percent more electricity than the identical model built in New York or Texas.

“The windiest sites have not been built, because there is no way to move that electricity from there to the load centers,” he said.

The basic problem is that many transmission lines, and the connections between them, are simply too small for the amount of power companies would like to squeeze through them. The difficulty is most acute for long-distance transmission, but shows up at times even over distances of a few hundred miles.

Transmission lines carrying power away from the Maple Ridge farm, near Lowville, N.Y., have sometimes become so congested that the company’s only choice is to shut down " or pay fees for the privilege of continuing to pump power into the lines.

Politicians in Washington have long known about the grid’s limitations but have made scant headway in solving them. They are reluctant to trample the prerogatives of state governments, which have traditionally exercised authority over the grid and have little incentive to push improvements that would benefit neighboring states.

In Texas, T. Boone Pickens, the oilman building the world’s largest wind farm, plans to tackle the grid problem by using a right of way he is developing for water pipelines for a 250-mile transmission line from the Panhandle to the Dallas market. He has testified in Congress that Texas policy is especially favorable for such a project and that other wind developers cannot be expected to match his efforts.

“If you want to do it on a national scale, where the transmission line distances will be much longer, and utility regulations are different, Congress must act,” he said on Capitol Hill.

Enthusiasm for wind energy is running at fever pitch these days, with bold plans on the drawing boards, like Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s notion of dotting New York City with turbines. Companies are even reviving ideas of storing wind-generated energy using compressed air or spinning flywheels.

Yet experts say that without a solution to the grid problem, effective use of wind power on a wide scale is likely to remain a dream.

The power grid is balkanized, with about 200,000 miles of power lines divided among 500 owners. Big transmission upgrades often involve multiple companies, many state governments and numerous permits. Every addition to the grid provokes fights with property owners.

These barriers mean that electrical generation is growing four times faster than transmission, according to federal figures.

In a 2005 energy law, Congress gave the Energy Department the authority to step in to approve transmission if states refused to act. The department designated two areas, one in the Middle Atlantic States and one in the Southwest, as national priorities where it might do so; 14 United States senators then signed a letter saying the department was being too aggressive.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know