To comment on a sidebar issue, the proposed pipeline to route Canadian tarsands
oil to the Gulf, might I propose that such to railed instead of planting a new
environment destructive pipeline. Before you jump all over me, note that
pipelines ARE NOT SAFER THAN RAIL. We have ample experience with that here in
Utah. Moreover, the railroad is already in place, i.e. doesn't have to be
built. Note also that increasing quantities of crude are going by rail what
with the new nontraditional origins and nontraditional destinations. The oil
can go anywhere the rail network goes, lots of places more than pipelines. Some
rail outfits like BNSF will get more filthy rich, but maybe that's a price
To "Happy Valley Heretic" but the liberals and their environmental
buddies are preventing us from building large renewable energy power plants.
They block every effort to build new nuclear power plants and faciliies to
reprocess the spent fuel rods.What I would really like to hear is
how does nationalizing the oil development in the US help? Private industry
typically operates at a lower cost than government, and also can get things done
quicker than the government. How does nationalizing oil do anything other than
make oil even more expensive?
...and what are the costs associated with defending pipelines and shipping lanes
in the Persian Gulf?There is no free market. If we don't nationalize
our oil then we will never be energy independent, ever, without renewables.Still trying to blame Obama is a sad excuse for lack of research on your
Re: "[Taxpayers reap] . . . lower energy prices across the spectrum."You're not seriously suggesting the Obama regime's flushing of
billions down that crony-capitalist "green energy" toilet can be
credited for any tiny dip we've recently seen in energy prices?You're also a little off on inflation-adjusted gas prices. In 1972,
[pre-embargo] gas cost about $0.36 a gallon. If inflation were the only
pressure, today's gas would cost right around 5.5 times that, or about $2 a
gallon.Inflation's not the only pressure, of course, but
we're WAY ahead of 2 bucks a gallon.We might be there, if we
weren't enriching Obama's "green energy" buddies, or if the
regime would step out of the way on exploration, drilling, and pipelines, but .
. . .The big driver of lower demand is, of course, the Obama
recession. So his policies may actually exert some negative pressure on energy
prices, but, here's hoping that'll turn around soon. When it does,
reduced natural gas prices may help, some, but liberals can't honestly take
credit for that, either.
"And taxpayers reap next-to-nothing from those incentives."Just lower energy prices across the spectrum. Thats all.We are at
a 17 year low in demand for oil... it didn't happen by accident. That
decreased demand is resulting in inflation adjusted prices for oil about what we
paid in 1972. Those prices are what is keeping coal and natural gas prices
down, because that is who oil competes with.US population up.....
energy demand down.... "next to nothing for those incentives" Looks like something to me.
To "Open Minded Mormon" you got the industry wrong. Oil companies pay
massive taxes and royalties to the US government. Read "Which Companies Pay
The Most In Taxes?" in Forbes. Learn that while Oil companies do make some
profits, they are taxed at about a 40% rate, which is higher than the
Pharmacuticles or Apple Computers.They don't receive subsidies,
and in fact have lower tax breaks than other industries.As for your
figure for subsidies to energy production, according to CNN "Energy
subsidies total $24 billion, most to renewables" we are spending $16 Billion
on renewables and energy efficiencies, and only $2.5 could even be considered
subsidies to oil companies, and those are in the form of tax breaks, not money
from the government to make them competitive.Ethanol alone got $6
billion, yet you are fine with an industry that burns food.Please
stop the lies and exagerations.
It's not an either or issue.Alternative power (Solar, Wind,
Geo-Thermal, Wave, etc.) is to supplement and augment the existing power
generators, thereby reducing our future 100% dependance on smaller and
smaller resources, and minimizing the impact from future power growth
requirements.Why do conservatives only see the past, and never look
forward to the future?
This is a low-information letter. Las Vegas is gearing up to power the entire
city with thermal solar collectors NOW. Meanwhile, we here in Utah send our kids
to die in the coal mines.
OK, Fine -- Let's start by dropping the extremely profitable
Oil Industries $25 Billion annual government subsides.How's
that for leveling the playingfield.However -- after watching
REPUBLICAN Texas congressman Joe Barton blubber, cry and cow-tow and apologize
to BP oil executives after THEIR oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico -- We
won't being seeing that anytime soon.
To "Roland Kayser" you mean the article where you have to build 2 power
plants in place of 1? They propose building a solar farm to produce fuel, then
a second facility to produce energy using the fuel. What you are saying is that
you would rather they build 2 power plants where only 1 would be needed if they
went nuclear.Now with this system, you will need to have a large
water source available for splitting into hydrogen. What large body of water do
we have in Arizona where that type of system would work?They still
have not solved the hole cloudy day issue.It is an interesting
concept, but it is still not feasable and probably won't be feasable for
another 50 years or more.
To Red Shirt: Goggle MIT solar power. They have a solution.
To "Scott M. Soulier" we already have an alternate reliable power source
that is renewable.Nuclear power is cheap, and the spent fuel is
recyclable. Spent fuel can be turned into new fuel, but right now the Feds
waste it by burying it.To "Roland Kayser" will we eliminate
night time and cloudy days in 20 years? How do you expect to generate power at
Re: ". . . renewables get their own incentives to levelize [sic] the playing
field for energy."And taxpayers reap next-to-nothing from those
incentives.It's not the concept of government offering
short-term incentives for new and promising technologies, to push them over the
hump to profitability, that bothers most conservatives. Government has done that
for years.If these incentives funded academic research or
engineering projects, most of us would be fine with them.Rather, the
problem is that these "renewables" incentives are too closely tied to
crony-capitalist, not-ready-for-primetime, production enterprises, almost all
led by left-wing campaign contributors. They produce almost no benefit to
taxpayers, but have developed a long-term life of their own, promising to
perpetually sap American vitality, to fund left-wing politics.In
other words, it's that these disingenuous, "shovel ready" liberal
scams are laughably unlikely to produce benefit for Americans anytime this
century, but are pursued anyway, for the sole purpose of unjustly enriching
well-placed liberal courtesans, at our expense.
The price of solar power has been falling sharply. It is projected that within
20 years, solar will supply electricity as cheaply as coal does now, without the
environmental costs. We just have to figure out how to get through the next 20
years, and fossil fuels will obviously still supply the majority of our power
throughout that period. Substituting natural gas for coal gets us a long way
toward that goal.
Energy isn't a free market. Consumers can't
"choose" electric utility providers -- they're monopolies, and we
have no choice but consume whatever electricity they provide, whether it’s
from coal, gas, or solar. No competition means we pay whatever the monopoly
charges -- and breathe the air pollution they leave behind. No "free"
choice here.Oil is dominated by state-owned "companies"
controlled by Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, Iran, etc., that dwarf
ExxonMobil, and those state-own companies use oil revenues to advance their
politics and way of life, including terrorism. Since cars need gasoline,
we're at the mercy of global political forces that drive yo-yo oil prices.
No “free” choice here either.Regarding subsidies,
renewable energy can't tap into the subsidies and incentives offered to
fossil fuels. Subsidized water for nuclear, coal, and natural gas, for example,
can't be enjoyed by wind or solar because they don't use precious
water. Subsidized drilling, railroads and pipelines can't be used for
renewables either. Thus, renewables get their own incentives to levelize the
playing field for energy. Nuclear and fossil fuels have been favored
“winners” with government subsidies for decades!