Obama - completely wrong on energy

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    In Response to Obama - completely wrong on energy:
    MOUNT HOLLY, N.C. (AP) — President Barack Obama is making his most urgent appeal yet for the nation to wean itself from oil, calling it a "fuel of the past." He's demanding the United States broaden its approach to energy, mindful of the political dangers of high gas prices. Obama says shrinking demand for oil must drive the solution. He is touting his energy policies Wednesday in North Carolina, a state that figures prominently in the presidential election and will host the Democratic presidential convention. Obama calls on Congress to provide $1 billion in grants to local communities to encourage greater use of fuel-efficient technologies. He wants better tax incentives to encourage the purchase and use of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Obama says that as consumers use less fuel, "that lowers the demand, prices come down." -------------------------- What a moron. Oil is not the fuel of the past, it is here for a LONG time, unless you want to really strangle the economy for lack of fuel. The historic truth is that more efficient cars do not lead to lower demand for fuel. The truth is that people drive more when the get better fuel economy. This is detailed in the book The Conundrum. Obama fails to realize that US demand no longer determines the price of gasoline and oil. That is because there are new users coming on by the millions in China, India, Russia, Brazil and elsewhere. Plus the cheap oil is falling quickly as a total of world production and we are losing refinieries here in the US not adding more. If the Republicans have any brains, they will make hay on this issue and Obama's dumb decision to delay that pipeline. He is too tied to the watermelons. People like cars, heat for their homes, and fresh food in the store year round. With Obama as President, that will be in jeopardy.
    Posted by Newtster


    Nope.  Oil is pretty much an outdated fuel.  The current pace of third-world development will consume it rather quickly.  Another 50-75 years maybe, but that's it.  Same with coal.  US demand hasn't dictated oil prices for decades now.

    The Conundrum also argues that less consumption as the single best way to reduce energy costs...."to drive less, travel less, eat less meat, buy less stuff, and live in smaller homes."  Obama is advocating this approach, among others, and he's absolutely correct to do so (though too slow, IMO).

    (I also think Owens has it wrong on cars.  Even hybrid drivers consciously adjust their driving habits to save gas even while they buy much less fuel than non-hybrids. He's also a bit short on actual solutions.)

    These are the unpleasant facts that many conservatives rail against, but they're no less true from Owen's mouth as from mine.  These are behavioral patterns which will need to change. 

    The fact is that any solution has to be implemented on a large scale, much larger than rooftop solar or a few wind turbines, which are cute but not very effective.  Multiply this by 10,000,000, and you might be getting somewhere.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    I don't undertand what is so confusing.  The United States has 2-3% of the world's oil and consumes 20%+ of the world's oil.  Anyone who thinks this is a sustainable model is out of their mind.  But yeah, yets further invest in infrastructure for this insufficient, unsustainable and costly source of energy.

    Birth Control and Gas Prices.... The Republicans are campaigning in 1972. 
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from APerfectCircle. Show APerfectCircle's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    It's quite obvious we need other options to oil. I don't even know how people can argue against that.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    In Response to Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy:
    In Response to Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy : I suppose if you use moonbat math we can run a huge country with a growing economy on windmills and solar panels, but reality dictates using more oil until something better comes along, something that also works when the wind doesn't blow and the sun don't shine.
    Posted by Newtster


    "Until something better comes along...." LOL!!!!  That is a fine fine energy policy you've got there.  We will all just wake up one day and the Energy Fairy will have solved our dependence on foreign oil. 

    Just an FYI, wind and solar both have ample technology to store saved energy, in the case of a cloudy windless day.  There are plenty and plenty of places where the Sun shines 300+ days a year.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    In Response to Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy:
    In Response to Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy : I suppose if you use moonbat math we can run a huge country with a growing economy on windmills and solar panels, but reality dictates using more oil until something better comes along, something that also works when the wind doesn't blow and the sun don't shine.
    Posted by Newtster


    Actually no, the reality dictates using LESS oil, not more...

    ...as well as the "all of the above" strategy so frequently mentioned.

    Example:

    Just the other day, they had a test in downeast Maine on tidal power generators in the Bay of Fundy, which has some of the strongest tides in the world.  In ideal situations, a full complement of these generators could power a few hundred thousand homes.

    Will this work everywhere?  No.  But, it will work for the areas closest to the site of generation (SoG) and render a fairly remote region self-sustaining and with a minimum environmental impact to some very sensitive aquaculture areas.

    (p.s. I work in the energy sector.)

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    "Oil is pretty much an outdated fuel.  The current pace of third-world development will consume it rather quickly.  Another 50-75 years maybe"

    ROFL...how clueless...the "Peak Oil" moonbat mantra lives on, despite all evidence to the contrary..
    75 years is 'quickly"?
    Developing new technology makes the leftist spiel about oil, a  crock of Bullcrap

    ...
    Oil forecasts made in the 1970’s, had the same fear:

      -  General, non-quantitative, fears of global supply scarcity, based on the experience of shortages that occurred during the oil shocks.  -  Predictions of global oil would run out (i.e., reach exhaustion) in 30 years or so, based on the then-proved oil reserves of about 30 years’ worth of current production.

      Predictions that global oil would reach a production peak (very different to oil running out) around the year 2000.

    Same old, same old...BS about running out of oil...

    Does the "75 year supply" include shale oil? Do you think, perhaps, we might look elsewhere besides the existing 75 year supply and find more, if we needed it?
    The WSJ pointed out that wind power, even if you believe all the BS about its efficiency, and built windmills everywhere, would at best supply like 3% of the power needed by 2030...

    "tides" to the rescue...more taxpayer money wasted and out to sea...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    In Response to Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy:
    (p.s. I work in the energy sector.)
    Posted by MattyScornD


    Bet you consume a boatload of taxpayer dollars, on pie in the sky energy solutions that will never be feasible...but Obama does needs to pay off his campaign contributors..
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    Table of Forecasts of World Oil Supply 
    Date of ForecastSourceForecast Date of Conventional PeakAssumed Ultimate*Notes
    1972ESSO“Oil to become increasingly scarce from about the year 2000.”   2100 Gb[1]
    1972Report for the UN   Confr. on Human  Environment  likely that peak production will have been reached by the year 2000.”   2500 Gb[2]
    1974SPRU, SussexUniversity, UK    n/a   1800 – 2480 Gb[3]
    1976UK Dept. of   EnergyPeak: “about .. 2000.”      n/a[4]
    1977HubbertPeak: 1996.   2000 Gb (Nehring)[5]
    1977Ehrlich et al.Peak: 2000.   1900 Gb[6]
    1979Shell“.. plateau within the        next 25 years.”      n/a[7]
    1979BP (Oil Crisis …          again?)Peak (non-communist world):  1985.      n/a[8]
    1981World Bank“.. plateau around the        turn of the century.”    1900 Gb[9]
    1995PetroconsultantsPeak: 2005.   1800 Gb, (excl. NGLs)[10]
    1997IvanhoePeak: 2010.~ 2000 Gb[11]
    1997EdwardsPeak: 2020.   2836 Gb[12]
    1998IEA: WEO 1998Peak: 2014.   2300 Gb refnce. case[13]
    1999USGS (Magoon)Peak: ~2010.~ 2000 Gb[14]
    1999CampbellPeak: ~2010.   2000 Gb (incl. polar,                    deep)[15]
    2000BartlettPeak: 2004, or 2019.   2000, or 3000 Gb[16]
    2000IEA: WEO 2000 Peak: “Beyond 2020.”   3345 Gb (from USGS)[17]
    2000US EIAPeak: 2016 - 2037.   3003 Gb (from USGS)[18]
    2001DeffeyesPeak: 2003 - 2008.~ 2000 Gb[19]
    2002SmithPeak: 2011 - 2016   2180 Gb[20]
    2002‘Nemesis’Peak: 2004 - 2011   1950 - 2300 Gb equiv.[21]
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    In Response to Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy:
    In Response to Obama - completely wrong on energy : Nope.  Oil is pretty much an outdated fuel.  The current pace of third-world development will consume it rather quickly.  Another 50-75 years maybe, but that's it.  Same with coal.  US demand hasn't dictated oil prices for decades now. The Conundrum also argues that less consumption as the single best way to reduce energy costs...."to drive less, travel less, eat less meat, buy less stuff, and live in smaller homes."  Obama is advocating this approach, among others, and he's absolutely correct to do so (though too slow, IMO). (I also think Owens has it wrong on cars.  Even hybrid drivers consciously adjust their driving habits to save gas even while they buy much less fuel than non-hybrids. He's also a bit short on actual solutions.) These are the unpleasant facts that many conservatives rail against, but they're no less true from Owen's mouth as from mine.  These are behavioral patterns which will need to change.  The fact is that any solution has to be implemented on a large scale, much larger than rooftop solar or a few wind turbines, which are cute but not very effective.  Multiply this by 10,000,000, and you might be getting somewhere.
    Posted by MattyScornD

    Here are the current reserve estimates:

    • Coal: 417 years
    • Oil: 43 years
    • Natural gas: 167 years

    Given that,  The best plan is to do more research with coal, that's where the reserves are the largest.  nuke power would be the next option.  Wind and solar are just too expensive and too limited.  Unless you have a very specific need that can't be met on the existing power grid, both are way more expensive than the alternatives.

    Solar and wind will not meet  demand or cost goals.  Obama was a fool to invest in these areas.

    There are some interesting wave energy and high altitude wind energy project that may be useful in the future.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    ...in 2011, federal subsidies for green energy totaled $24 billion.  Also, between 2009 and 2012, the DOE provided $25 billion in loans “primarily to producers of advanced vehicles, generators of solar power, and manufacturers of solar equipment.”  Fossil fuels, on the other hand, received $3.4 billion in “tax preferences.”

    However, those numbers don’t tell the full story.  Most of the tax preferences for fossil fuels go towards more universal deductions like expensing for exploration costs.  Green energy receives direct subsidies per kilowatt hour produced – benefits that are awarded solely to the wind and solar industries.  Also, due to the inefficiency and cost of green energy, these companies fail to generate enough revenue to incur a tax liability.  As such, many of these tax preferences are actually refundable.  Fossil fuel companies pay millions in taxes.  To illustrate the point, Heritage scholar David Kreutzer shows how wind companies receive 1,000 times the subsidy that is given to oil companies.

    The most important distinction between the two industries is the fact that green energy benefits from a clean-energy mandate in more than half the states.  One cannot possibly quantify the benefit of having government use the force of law to coerce consumers and producers into using your product, even though it is expensive and inefficient.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    The only morons here are the wingnuts who believe that oil is fuel of the future.

    Oil is the fuel of right now. Technology will solve the energy problem in one way or another but that doesn't mean we should cause the economy to die waiting for it to happen.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy

    In Response to Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy:
    In Response to Re: Obama - completely wrong on energy : Bet you consume a boatload of taxpayer dollars, on pie in the sky energy solutions that will never be feasible...but Obama does needs to pay off his campaign contributors..
    Posted by BetheKoolaid


    You can shut your mouth right there.  You don't have the right or credibility to judge what I do for a living - the basic concept of which seems completely lost on you...

    ...as well as the realization that VA prostrates itself for govt monies every bloody chance it gets. 

    But, like most troll-cons, you prefer to judge first, then maybe ask questions later.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share