Republicans & Conservatives Archives

I think you stole that idea from T.Boone Pickens. I wish Obama would pursue it, and healthcare, and fianacial reform. Don’t you?

Gee, You guys sound down right Democratic.

C&J
Plus NG has the advantage of leaving the same energy oligarchs in charge of the world. What could be better.

Gergle

I have never had an original thought in my life. In fact, I consider that the advantage of a broad education is that you can steal broadly from all the best minds.

Of course T Boone Pickens got here before I did. Some of the linked articles mention him. When I started to write, I wasn’t really thinking of natural gas. I was writing about the vicissitudes of fortune and the need to have a robust adaption rather than a detailed plan. Natural gas was a good example.

re sounding Democratic - IMO a big difference between conservatives and liberals is in how we view the locus of decision. I believe in using market forces because I believe the aggregated wisdom of large numbers of people who each has some information AND a specific stake in the outcome produces the best results. I believe is setting up this process. It is not a plan as liberal like, where a centralized authority calls the shots. For me, the state should be like the watchmakers and occasionally the watch repair person, but not the manager.

Bills

Only some of the oligarchs are the same. It cuts out many of the foreign despots. Beyond that, natural gas is widely distributed, so it will concentrate ownership less.

Anyway, I am interested in addressing the energy/environmental problem. Who owns it (beyond wanting the crimp despots like Hugo, Vlad and Mahmoud) is not one of my urgent concerns.

Perhaps an increased use of Natural gas would be a good idea, and would lighten the load on dirtier, more carbon-emitting coal. But we should be careful about how we put together these plants. There was a big accident over the weekend at a Connecticut plant.

But long run, we need to keep the focus on the renewables, on solar, wind, and ultimately fusion-based nuclear power.

We need to kick our dependence on chemical energy. Our luck, though, as it happens, is that the same technology that makes our computers super-computer powerful nowadays is helping us to usher in the new nanotechnological revolution. Things like superpowerful batteries, super-efficient, durable, and/or flexible solar cells, energy storing ultracapacitors, among other things are paving the way for a new energy future.

No reference to the Carmina Burana is complete without Carl Orff.

In any case, I hope these ideas regarding natural gas pan out as these people predict. I’m still skeptical regarding the ability of natural gas to replace oil in the marketplace and curb greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently. Most likely, the specter of global warming will be met with a multifaceted solution. Wind, Solar, Fission, Natural Gas and to a lesser extent hydroelectric and geothermal will all have a role to play in our energy future. What is clear though is we need to relegate coal and oil to the margins of the energy market of the future.

warped

An educated man. I am glad somebody gets the references. I hope you also got the connection with Boethius.

I don’t think that the gas will replace oil altogether. It will be part of our portfolio of fuels, as you suggest. It is a bit of good luck that comes at an opportune time.

I just hope we don’t count our chickens before they hatch. I wouldn’t want the government to subsidize any natural gas industry without substantial evidence that they will be able to lower greenhouse gas emissions and do it cheaper than wind & solar. We have learned from the corn-based ethanol fiasco a few years ago.

I’m sorry I to disappoint, but I had to look Boethius up on Wikipedia to that reference. Twelve years of playing the violin has made me a fan of Western Art Music (aka Classical Music), so I knew about Carl Orff. Beyond that, I’m just a college student with a High School Diploma.

Warped

I don’t think the government should subsidize it all. It would be good to make sure the regatory environment is benign so that those who want to open stations can.

It would also be good for government on all levels to switch their own fleets to gas where they can. Many of our local buses run on natural gas, which is cleaner and cheaper. But the problem is that it is not easily available on a small scale.

As you found out Boethius was a big deal in the Middle Ages. The wheel of fortune concept was an important metaphor then and it remains a useful one now, lest we think we have ever won a final victory (or suffered a final defeat until we are actually dead).

We have new technologies that have greatly increased our supplies of natural gas but, the cost of natural gas is escalating rapidly.

The state of Florida has given the go ahead to build new nuclear plants. The two main reasons cited: the escalating cost of natural gas and the dependence on foreign oil.

As a retorical issue, Republicans deny that global warming is occuring and more vehemently deny that humans are a cause even if it is warming up.

As a policy issue, Republicans use global warming to promote their own energy proposals.

For a more accurate evaluation of Republican energy policy I suggest people take a look at:

President Obama’s Back-to-the-Future Nuclear Plan…More Spending, More Panels, No Bold Ideas.

The Republican comments on Obama’s plan and the Republican energy plan, H.R. 2846 can be found at GOP.Gov.

Most of this is no suprise. Republicans are promoting the most profitable yet most costly to consumers energy option.

One suprise, to me, that did emerge in the H.R.2846 plan is:

Uranium Supply Summit: The bill requires a federal uranium supply summit to report on ways to domestically produce enough uranium to meet 30 percent of demand by 2030.

Republicans are proposing that we end our dependence on foreign oil by creating a dependence on foreign supplies of uranium. Oil despots for uranium despots?

I don’t think the government should subsidize it all. It would be good to make sure the regatory environment is benign so that those who want to open stations can.

I’m OK with that. I just don’t think we should try exempting Natural Gas from any future carbon taxes or cap/trade proposals that come to fruition. Also, the regulatory environment should be concerned with safety. Those LNG tankers are big terrorist targets when they are in the harbor of our nation’s largest cities. Boston receives natural gas through a 40 year old terminal in Everett, which is just across the Mystic river from downtown. If an explosion happened it would be devastating, so currently the Coast Guard shuts down the entire Port of Boston to allow the LNG tanker to enter the harbor. Future terminals need to be located further away from major population centers. I think that’s a reasonable regulation.

Jwl

Mainstream Republicans believe that global warming is a problem and that humans are contributing to it. This was George Bush’s position. The very conservative Charles Krauthammer proposed a carbon tax last year. John McCain proposed a climate stewardship act in 2003. When the Democrats had predominant control of congress last year, what did they do besides talk and posture? Nothing.
I know it is more fun to fight easily dispatched straw men, but you cannot always have the adversary of your choice.

The difference I have observed in liberals is that they love the issue but hate the solutions. They loved Kyoto in theory, but Clinton-Gore never submitted the treaty to the Senate. Maybe that is because ALL The Democrats had already voted to reject it.

There is a lot of talk among liberals of some kind of magic fix. This is really Harry Potter type magic. When we discover ways to get more natural gas, which is much cleaner, we get yawns. When we propose just doing what the French have achieved with nuclear (they get 78% of their electricity from nuclear) we get actual hostility. If the greenhouse effect is really so severe, maybe you ought to do something more than talk about it.

The bottom line is that oil fuel is convenient and inexpensive. That is why we use it. As long as it remains so convenient and cheap, there is strong incentive to use it. Alternatives will be more expensive or less convenient. Otherwise they wouldn’t be called alternatives, they would just be called fuel.

BTW - wind power is loved by all … until you try to build it. Remember the Massachusetts project? It was first blocked by Kennedy - personally - because it interfered with his view. Now they got some Native Americans to claim that they have some sacred rights (maybe some of their ancestors are buried out in the ocean. Who knows?) Anyway, unless we can build wind power etc, we cannot have alternatives.

Warped

I think we should tax all source of carbon. Gas emits less per unit of energy. It will do just fine.

Nothing wrong with locating gas facilities farther from cities. As long as we can keep the special interests from blocking them (as in the craven Kennedy case.)

Christine
Ah,yes. The French nuclear power system is 100% socialist. Sure you want to go there?

Christine
The Mass. project is anecdotal evidence and not germaine. Typical tactic. Wind is being used all over the place and has a promising future. Opposition to alternate energy of course, comes from Big Oil and translates mostly in political terms through the bought and paid for Republican party. Thats one of the reasons that China,Japan,and S.Korea are much farther ahead in production and sales of solar and wind technologies. The right has decided that America should fall behind so as not to displease their corporate masters.
The big fear from the Big Energy players, and your linked propaganda mill shows it, is that most alternate energy technologies pencil out better on smaller scales. The big advantage to nucs,for example, is that they require such huge capitalization that only the same players that now control energy can play ball.They don’t make any money from a roof installed solar panel. There is a large vested interest in slowing down or stopping what should be a dramatic and profitable shift to non-fossil fuels, the kind of change tailor made to get Americans working again. It should also be noted that as Small scale and individual energy production and conservation occur people gain more freedom. This is happening now. Lots of folks have put in solar to provide electrical and hot water needs. They pay the utility company less and sometimes not at all. That means they get to keep more of their own money. If the arguement that paying less tax increases freedom is valid then so is the arguement that paying less for energy increases freedom.

Bills

I was just calling to attention the hypocrisy of those such as the late Teddy Kennedy who advocate things as long as others pay the price.

Re big oil - big energy firms can get into wind too. No matter what energy system we use, people will either figure out how to make money on it, otherwise it won’t get done.

You were misinformed about those other countries being ahead of us. The U.S. became the biggest producer of wind power in 2008.

Besides, in a developing technology it sometimes makes sense NOT to be the leader. Let others install the old stuff and work out the bugs.

I have been watching solar (since I plan to install it when I build a house). You can get a system for about half the price of a few years ago and it works better. This is a sign of its progress, but also perhaps a argument not to jump too fast. As I wrote a little farther up to Jwl, it might be like locking yourself into 486 computers.

BTW - a very good decentralized source of energy is biomass. We already have the technologies. Why don’t we use it more? Because oil is still too cheap. There is that cost thing again. We have to make energy more expensive, which is never a popular idea.

Christine, I don’t doubt that many mainstream Republicans are as you say but, mainstream Republicans don’t speak for the party or their representatives. Most mainstream Republicans are fiscal conservatives. How well did your party do on that subject when they were in control of the government? I think mainstream Republicans are about par with mainstream Democrats when it comes to having a lot of influence over their politicians policy decisions.

As to Clinton-Gore and the Democrats, your talking about a Democratic party that had already been bought out by the corpocracy.

Compare the legislation signed by Clinton with that signed by Nixon, if Clinton was a liberal, what was Nixon?

Of course, Republicans love to portray alternative energy as a desire for a magic fix. The reality is that research into wind and solar was stymied for years by big oil. Considering that the technologies were until recently starved for research dollars the progress has been remarkable. The price per kw/h for wind power is now the equivalent of fossil fuels and will be less in the future. Solar isn’t far behind.

The bottom line, alternatives have done remarkably well considering the uphill battle on an uneven playing field.

The bottom line, soon alternative energy will be called fuel.

Yes, Kennedy and his neighbors were being hypocritical. It is the same hypocracy that has always lorded it over America. It is hypocracy that comes from the arrogance of wealth. The wealthy have always lived up wind of the crap. Are there any chemical plants or concrete plants on Fifth Avenue?

The fact is that we are building more wind power capacity every day and will continue to do so in the future.

I know that there are those who would like to replace the American peoples addiction to an non-renewable with another addiction of the same. I hope we don’t fall for it for the sake of our posterity.

Christine

“No matter what energy system we use, people will either figure out how to make money on it, otherwise it won’t get done. “

Thats contrary to your extolling the French nuclear program. It does not make money nor was it ever intended too. Does pay for itself though.
Seeing as how you like their program does that mean that you believe government can do an excellent job or only the French government can?
Generally speaking,you are correct that money needs to be made in alternate energy production on some level. The small town in N.CA. I came from installed solar panels for the municiple swimming pool. For the first time ever the pool started running in the black saving taxpayer money. The County sewer distrct started a program of solar installation that was estimated to save ratepayers about 30 thousand a month. Small scale stuff amounts to lots without the possibility of a china syndrome.
France’as you know,has a socialist nuclear power program and real good safety record so far,anyway. We have a “lemon socialist” nuclear program. Lemon socialism is when the private market can’t figure how to make enough money in an industry that must be kept going . The government steps in,or stays in as happened in Russia. The Feds stepped in to try and handle the huge and growing problem of diposing nuclear waste. The Feds have stepped in to underwrite the liability of nuclear plants. The private insurrance carriers would not touch them. I wonder why,if they are so safe. At any rate we have socialism picking up the tab for the negative consequences but not getting a cut of any profits or much in the way of consumer protection. These are unwarrented subsidiesIMO. If that industry cannot pick up the tab for storing their own waste for a hundred thousand years or cover the damages after they contaminate Arizona or New Jersey then they should not be in business. How free market of me,huh.

The French have a different sort of system that is generally less dynamic than ours, but does the nuke thing well. The French as less concerned with the nuances of public opinion than we are, so I imagine they run those thing closer to a business model than we could.

Got to go will write more later.

Christine
I poked around your wind power link and found the EU is producing about twice the amount of power we are from wind. I was refering to missing the boat on equiptment production,though. Suzlon is claimming to be the biggest supplier. Seems to me we should be building better and cheaper devices.It would be nice to have something to sell abroad besides fighters.

Christine-
You are aware that nuclear power requires considerable subsidies to be built, aren’t you?

Stephen

Every large energy production has government as a partner.

The French nuclear porgram has one big problem. They don’t have a permanent storage site for high level nuclear waste and none of the French people want it in their back yard.

Our nuclear industry want’s to build between 100 and 200 hundred plants. They admit that more than 70 percent of the uranium will come from foreign sources.

There will be thousands of convoys of nuclear waste going to Yucca Mtn. over the years. The contingency plans for convoys calls for escort service to be conducted by U. S. troops and state police. The salaries, benefits and pentions of those troops will be paid by the taxpayers. So to the vehicles, weapons and equipment they use.

Bills, Obama’s NASA budget changes it’s mission objectives and makes it an official lemon socialist program.

Christine
What on earth does “less dynamic” mean in this context? When you say you “imagine” they run it closer to a business model,imagine is the operative word. I think they are making a mistake in policy in the long run because of the problems mentioned by jlw and the fact that Murphy’Law still is in effect. Sooner or later there will be a major nuclear disaster.
Here you have a government run program that you admit runs pretty well. Is it that you just don’t trust Americans to run an efficient and reliable program or are you saying that government can operate effectively after all,given the proper funding,direction and qualified personell? Perhaps you might take that into future consideration.A break through? Or are you about to flail about like the Robinsin’s robot,exclaimming,”That does not compute!”

jlw
Haven’t looked a lot at the proposed NASA changes. I am aware that another manned moon mission will not provide much beyond PR. Been there,done that. Reaserch into going farther,Mars? Appeals to me more.

Apparently socialism is just fine so long as it goes to big energy companies and does not benefit working people having trouble affording health care.