Bush’s energy/food strategy unsurprisingly underwhelming 7

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 12:55 am
   30 Apr 2008

   Beating a Dead Drum (Barrel)
   
   Oil is kaput.
   The exchanges are trying to squeeze every last cent out of it before the plunge comes.
   We've got ethanol at $1 a gallon and it doesn't use corn:
   http://www.coskata.com/
   We've got solar at 5 cents a kwh:
   http://www.sunrgi.com/index.html
   
   Texeme.Construct(Participant)

   Permalink

2. 

   bigTom Posted 1:39 am
   30 Apr 2008

   Grand compromise?  I've long advocated for a grand compromise. Horse trading off ANWR and nukes for an aggressive program of renewables and conservation. I think this might help to deflect some of the prevailing myths, such as "if only the liberals would get out the way and let us drill". The small energy wedges provided would marginally help in the medium term (10-25years).
      We do need some robust low carbon baseline power, to compliment the time variable renewables component. That is where Nuclear might contribute. Why are Nuclear costs skyrocketing? Is it because of new regulatory burdens? Or is it caused by an increase in the price of the commodities needed for construction? If solar and wind become a large part of our future supply, I would anticipate a reversal of the current cost structure; peak power expensive, baseline(night) cheap, becomes cheap daytime power, but expensive nighttime power. This would allow relatively more expensive baseline generation to be economic.

   Permalink

3. 

   GonzoDon Posted 3:38 am
   30 Apr 2008

   Huh?Why do we need to sacrifice ANWR to "deflect some prevailing myths"?  
   There are already plenty of FACTS out there that SHOULD be enough to deflect myths: That we could save more oil than ANWR will ever produce by boosting auto efficiencies by a mere 2 mpg.  That at peak production ANWR would reduce our foreign imported oil from about 70% to a miniscule 66%.  That once ANWR is exhausted, we'll be right back where we started -- only worse. (more people, more global warming, less oil left, yet still reliant on the same old unsustainable happy-motoring model that got us here in the first place).
   Of course I know the answer.  People will hold on to their myths no matter how much reality you throw at them.  Look at how many people (in the U.S.) believe the earth is 10,000 years old.  Look at how many people (in the U.S.) believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11 (even though the Bush Administration has itself said otherwise).  
   Sigh.  People love to cling to their myths.  After ANWR is despoiled, and after all the ANWR oil is gone, a new myth will arise to take its place.  It will be something like "Jesus will come tomorrow to save us from this globally-warmed mess and mass starvation that we have created here on earth".
   Any you will be labeled an anti-patriot if you question that myth.
   Do I sound cynical?  My county's persistent inability to take even the simplest, most obvious political steps forward (e.g., what on God's green earth was Congress thinking when they failed to extend the tax credits for wind power!) has pretty much exhausted my optimism.  I am strapping myself in for a long, bumpy, unpleasant ride ...

   Permalink

4. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 4:24 am
   30 Apr 2008

   ActuallyThe 15% figure is an average...
   
   It's 10% from the FAO, and 30% from the World Bank.
   Also According to him, increasing global oil demand by a fraction of 1%, will not significantly increase the market price of oil.
   On the flipside, increasing global oil supplies by a fraction of 1%, will significantly decrease the market price of oil.
   _____
   He was of course referring to filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
   Versus Drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Preserve.

   Permalink

5. 

   davedenali Posted 7:18 am
   30 Apr 2008

   re: grand compromiseBig Tom, your proposal is full of flaws.  Environmental groups couldn't concede on nuclear power if they wanted to.  More importantly, their concession wouldnt mean much anyway: it's not environmental groups who have stopped nuclear plants.  It's Wall Street investors.  As for "trading away" the Arctic Refuge, again, no one has the ability to do that.  And I'd no more trade the Refuge than trade the redwoods.  Congress needs to fund renewables and efficiency because they're good public policy.

   Permalink

6. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 3:08 pm
   01 May 2008

   Moron
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 12:02 am
   02 May 2008

   Ooo ooo eee eee ahh ahhNice job voting Bush voters.  Next time?  Please consider voting for a human candidate.  Just a suggestion.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink