<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Candidates talk energy in the final debate, but don’t stray from their usual talking points]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:14:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/1 By biodiesel he meant

biofuel and by biofuel, he meant corn ethanol. They are both masters of playing politics but neither one of them really have answers to our energy or economic problems. The only hope is that wise advisers will sort it out for them once they get in office, but I'm not holding my breath. Politics does not end just because you get into office.

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

]]> By biodiesel he meant

biofuel and by biofuel, he meant corn ethanol. They are both masters of playing politics but neither one of them really have answers to our energy or economic problems. The only hope is that wise advisers will sort it out for them once they get in office, but I'm not holding my breath. Politics does not end just because you get into office.

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

]]> Comment #2 by steve s http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:59:36 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/2 Talking Points of No Return

With only about 3 weeks until election day, its amazing and frustrating that both McCain, Obama, and the media (including our beloved Grist) really don't have a clue on energy and oil dependency.

Understanding the "big picture" is pretty easy just by going to the U.S. Department of Energy's Webpage for Kids.

In understanding the policy issue of energy and oil dependency, one has to break this issue into two components for any meaningful discussion:  (1) electricity generation; (2) transportation.

Fact 1:  In electricity generation in the U.S., oil supplies about 1% of the fuel requirements (the majority of fuel used is coal).

Fact 2:  Of the total oil consumed in the U.S., about 70% is used in the transportation sector (our cars and trucks).

So, even if we put a nuclear power plant (YIKES!), or a wind turbine, or a solar panel on every street corner to generate electricity this would not do much to reduce oil dependency.  The U.S. just doesn't use much oil to generate electricity (Fact 1).

The only way alternatives to oil (clean coal, nuclear, solar, wind power) makes sense is if dramatic technology breakthroughs are made in electric powered vehicles - and who knows how many decades this would take to achieve under "Professor Obama's Plan".

At least T. Boone Pickens has the correct sector identified in his Plan to increase the use of domestic natural gas in the transportation sector.  What is totally unclear to me in the Pickens Plan is the cost required to create a national fueling infrastructure to use natural gas for transportation.

It is also my understanding that the "prime" U.S. natural gas areas to dramatically increase supply are not in offshore waters, but in places like Austin, Texas.

Of course, there are environmental concerns with extracting natural gas on-shore as the drilling process takes a lot of water.  But since Texas gave us George W. Bush, I think a fair trade would be to level Austin and make it into the world's largest natural gas field.  It would be the "patriotic" thing to do.  Also, it would achieve the Republican mantra (modified just a little) of "Drill, Baby, Drill for natural gas in Austin".

(To understand renewable energy options better, go to our website at:  http://www.treepower.org/biomass/quickfacts.html).    

]]> Talking Points of No Return

With only about 3 weeks until election day, its amazing and frustrating that both McCain, Obama, and the media (including our beloved Grist) really don't have a clue on energy and oil dependency.

Understanding the "big picture" is pretty easy just by going to the U.S. Department of Energy's Webpage for Kids.

In understanding the policy issue of energy and oil dependency, one has to break this issue into two components for any meaningful discussion:  (1) electricity generation; (2) transportation.

Fact 1:  In electricity generation in the U.S., oil supplies about 1% of the fuel requirements (the majority of fuel used is coal).

Fact 2:  Of the total oil consumed in the U.S., about 70% is used in the transportation sector (our cars and trucks).

So, even if we put a nuclear power plant (YIKES!), or a wind turbine, or a solar panel on every street corner to generate electricity this would not do much to reduce oil dependency.  The U.S. just doesn't use much oil to generate electricity (Fact 1).

The only way alternatives to oil (clean coal, nuclear, solar, wind power) makes sense is if dramatic technology breakthroughs are made in electric powered vehicles - and who knows how many decades this would take to achieve under "Professor Obama's Plan".

At least T. Boone Pickens has the correct sector identified in his Plan to increase the use of domestic natural gas in the transportation sector.  What is totally unclear to me in the Pickens Plan is the cost required to create a national fueling infrastructure to use natural gas for transportation.

It is also my understanding that the "prime" U.S. natural gas areas to dramatically increase supply are not in offshore waters, but in places like Austin, Texas.

Of course, there are environmental concerns with extracting natural gas on-shore as the drilling process takes a lot of water.  But since Texas gave us George W. Bush, I think a fair trade would be to level Austin and make it into the world's largest natural gas field.  It would be the "patriotic" thing to do.  Also, it would achieve the Republican mantra (modified just a little) of "Drill, Baby, Drill for natural gas in Austin".

(To understand renewable energy options better, go to our website at:  http://www.treepower.org/biomass/quickfacts.html).    

]]> Comment #3 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:01:26 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/3 Steve,

Thanks! None of us here at Grist realized that the transportation sector is mostly powered by oil. We'll definitely factor that into our coverage from now on.

grist.org

]]> Steve,

Thanks! None of us here at Grist realized that the transportation sector is mostly powered by oil. We'll definitely factor that into our coverage from now on.

grist.org

]]> Comment #4 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:31:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/4 steve s --

Please for to looking here for oil use, and here concerning the completely separate electricity sector

]]> steve s --

Please for to looking here for oil use, and here concerning the completely separate electricity sector

]]> Comment #5 by F James Handley http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:35:25 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/5 Hot air, but NO WIND

Shieffer's question linked energy with climate, too bad his re-statement let them dodge the Inconvenient Truth.  

McCain advocates "drill" and "nuclear."  Obama: "clean coal" and fuel efficiency standards.  

Nukes wouldn't be built if taxpayers weren't insuring them. (Private companies don't take that much risk without government backing.)  Shouldn't that tell us something about the cost and the risk of nukes?  So much for McCain's "free market" ecomomics.

"Clean coal" (a.k.a. "carbon capture and sequestration") is a deadly mirage.  The Department of Energy doles out huge grants to research CCS. DOE and the Fourth IPCC report project that CCS would require AT LEAST 25% of the net energy from coal and roughly 80% more capital infrastructure than current coal-fired power plants.  That's if CCS works at all.  (No functioning CCS system to date.)  

Wind-generated electricity is NOW available for about 15% more than coal. (I buy it in DC. It's called POWER CHOICE.)  Solar (both photovoltaic and direct heating) is rapidly gaining cost competitiveness with fossil fuel sources.  Barely a mention of these much more cost effective and environmentally benign energy sources.

Very disappointing that neither candidate mentions conservation or transit.  We waste half the fuel we burn in the US, mostly because low prices (and price volatility) discourage investment in conservation.

No matter who wins, climate and energy activists have our work cut out for us.  Conservation, Wind and Solar which could stimule millions of new jobs, deserve to top the agenda.  Instead, we get warmed over baloney about "energy independence."  

]]> Hot air, but NO WIND

Shieffer's question linked energy with climate, too bad his re-statement let them dodge the Inconvenient Truth.  

McCain advocates "drill" and "nuclear."  Obama: "clean coal" and fuel efficiency standards.  

Nukes wouldn't be built if taxpayers weren't insuring them. (Private companies don't take that much risk without government backing.)  Shouldn't that tell us something about the cost and the risk of nukes?  So much for McCain's "free market" ecomomics.

"Clean coal" (a.k.a. "carbon capture and sequestration") is a deadly mirage.  The Department of Energy doles out huge grants to research CCS. DOE and the Fourth IPCC report project that CCS would require AT LEAST 25% of the net energy from coal and roughly 80% more capital infrastructure than current coal-fired power plants.  That's if CCS works at all.  (No functioning CCS system to date.)  

Wind-generated electricity is NOW available for about 15% more than coal. (I buy it in DC. It's called POWER CHOICE.)  Solar (both photovoltaic and direct heating) is rapidly gaining cost competitiveness with fossil fuel sources.  Barely a mention of these much more cost effective and environmentally benign energy sources.

Very disappointing that neither candidate mentions conservation or transit.  We waste half the fuel we burn in the US, mostly because low prices (and price volatility) discourage investment in conservation.

No matter who wins, climate and energy activists have our work cut out for us.  Conservation, Wind and Solar which could stimule millions of new jobs, deserve to top the agenda.  Instead, we get warmed over baloney about "energy independence."  

]]> Comment #6 by RDMiller http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:28:09 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/6 re: By biodiesel he meant

BioD,

Your statement is actually incorrect. When Obama talks about "biodiesel", he's talking about cellulosic ethanol. If you follow the trail of those in his inner circle and their connections to CE... and Obama's direct history with CE and statements about it at his web site...you'll quickly see that he understands the potential for CE and very much supports it. I think he fully understands that corn ethanol is a transitional fuel only and should not be further developed (and, in fact, should be phased out as CE sources come on line).

Richard

]]> re: By biodiesel he meant

BioD,

Your statement is actually incorrect. When Obama talks about "biodiesel", he's talking about cellulosic ethanol. If you follow the trail of those in his inner circle and their connections to CE... and Obama's direct history with CE and statements about it at his web site...you'll quickly see that he understands the potential for CE and very much supports it. I think he fully understands that corn ethanol is a transitional fuel only and should not be further developed (and, in fact, should be phased out as CE sources come on line).

Richard

]]> Comment #7 by salemguy http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:24:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/7 Obama and biodiesel

It seems to me Obama is smart enough to know the difference between ethanol and biodiesel, and that when he says that, that's what he means.

Ethanol is well on it's way to becoming a staple fuel, as it were, but biodiesel is way behind relative to our diesel use. Pickens' plan aims natural gas for transport at diesel trucks first, as I recall.

I don't have the exact number, but the US biodiesel industry is running at something south of 40% capacity, last I heard, primarily because of distribution and blending capacity problems.

It is odd he doesn't mention cellulosic ethanol, but when he says biodiesel I think that's what he means. Its potential is greatly under-developed.

]]> Obama and biodiesel

It seems to me Obama is smart enough to know the difference between ethanol and biodiesel, and that when he says that, that's what he means.

Ethanol is well on it's way to becoming a staple fuel, as it were, but biodiesel is way behind relative to our diesel use. Pickens' plan aims natural gas for transport at diesel trucks first, as I recall.

I don't have the exact number, but the US biodiesel industry is running at something south of 40% capacity, last I heard, primarily because of distribution and blending capacity problems.

It is odd he doesn't mention cellulosic ethanol, but when he says biodiesel I think that's what he means. Its potential is greatly under-developed.

]]> Comment #8 by salemguy http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:28:52 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/8 Obama biodiesel addition...

I should have hit preview instead of post. In re-reading my post, I realize there's another reason I think O means biodiesel when he says it -- I'm pretty sure he knows the generic term "biofuels" also...

]]> Obama biodiesel addition...

I should have hit preview instead of post. In re-reading my post, I realize there's another reason I think O means biodiesel when he says it -- I'm pretty sure he knows the generic term "biofuels" also...

]]> Comment #9 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/ Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:42:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/9 salemguy

Many biodiesel refiners are going bankrupt because they can't compete with food for their base stock. The food vs fuel debate is being reflected in both the price of food and biodiesel.

Biodiesel made from soy and canola use a lot more land than corn ethanol. They have turned out to be as bad or worse than corn ethanol in their own ways as they usurp carbon sinks and drive up food prices.

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

]]> salemguy

Many biodiesel refiners are going bankrupt because they can't compete with food for their base stock. The food vs fuel debate is being reflected in both the price of food and biodiesel.

Biodiesel made from soy and canola use a lot more land than corn ethanol. They have turned out to be as bad or worse than corn ethanol in their own ways as they usurp carbon sinks and drive up food prices.

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

]]> Comment #10 by salemguy http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/ Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:50:22 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/talking-points-of-no-return/10 biodiesel

I agree that soy and canola are not the best feedstocks for biodiesel, and recent prices have certainly hurt production.

That's probably why so much work is going on around algal biodiesel, something that surely does need to be developed, and will be, I think.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Obama is thinking when he mentions biodiesel.

]]> biodiesel

I agree that soy and canola are not the best feedstocks for biodiesel, and recent prices have certainly hurt production.

That's probably why so much work is going on around algal biodiesel, something that surely does need to be developed, and will be, I think.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is what Obama is thinking when he mentions biodiesel.

]]>