twa Posted November 27, 2011 Author Share Posted November 27, 2011 Higher costs do not a boom make I support the search and development of cleaner/cheaper energy completely,but instituting large scale INFERIOR technology is a money pit and a foolish waste of limited capital.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 The energy PRODUCTION sector is only one part of the green jobs sector. Then I believe that the fact which you highlighted is largely irrelevant. I would guess that the "440,000 workers" figure for oil and natural gas jobs doesn't include, say, New Jersey gas pumpers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 twa vs PeterMP= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Then I believe that the fact which you highlighted is largely irrelevant. I would guess that the "440,000 workers" figure for oil and natural gas jobs doesn't include, say, New Jersey gas pumpers. Because his link didn't say alternative energy PRODUCTION. It said GREEN JOBS. "So President Obama was right all along. Domestic energy production really is a path to prosperity and new job creation. His mistake was predicting that those new jobs would be "green," when the real employment boom is taking place in oil and gas." I'll also point out that jobs are up in alternative energy production like solar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Because his link didn't say alternative energy PRODUCTION. It said GREEN JOBS."So President Obama was right all along. Domestic energy production really is a path to prosperity and new job creation. His mistake was predicting that those new jobs would be "green," when the real employment boom is taking place in oil and gas." I'll also point out that jobs are up in alternative energy production like solar. Um... "those new jobs" is referring to ones created by "domestic energy production." He then says "those new jobs" aren't green. Plus, even if you were correct, you're only playing a dumb game of semantics. It's extremely obvious that he's talking about energy production jobs, not forest ranger jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Why does the claim of 15% not match up with the DOE/AEI numbers?Is it because they are using peak rates instead of normal ones :pfft: ,and the compliance costs other utilities face? I don't know, but it is YOUR link. My guess would be because, as I've already pointed out the DOE/AEI numbers are AVERAGES and areas like CA because of the amount of sun it gets is above average. You wish to complain about tax breaks,so tell me what the tax revenue from fossil fuels is and how you will replace it W/O raising rates/taxes even more?There are already efforts to tax EV's to recoup losses in tax revenue. Decreased spending? Cut military costs? I certainly agree we need to change our energy policy and FP to domestic production and energy security(be it alt or fossil based)....I am less than thrilled to see us simply switching dependence from the ME to China thoughadd Your assertion the alt industry is growing ignores the mandates to buy it and the large subsidies directed to them.....anything will grow if it is mandated and subsidized(see Obamacare) it is unsustainable unless you fix the economy....which domestic fossil fuel development does to some degree. The jobs are growing. You link flatly and falsely said they aren't. Fossil fuels have been subsidized through industry specific tax breaks for almost century. Think about the how the logging industry would be different if there was a depletion allowance. Planting new trees would in fact be economically DISADVANTAGOUS. How about farmers? We could make using fertilizer economically DISADVANTAGOUS. Farmers would take a tax cut for the nutrients taken out of the field with every growing season, and then when the field is depleted move onto another piece of land and start over with the tax cut. We've created an industry that has ZERO incentive to find away to "renew" things (and have been subsidizing them for almost a century to NOT find away to renew things) and people are surprised that we don't have good renewable energy. How are we switching our dependence to China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 China is cornering the market in solar panels and wind because they can undercut the prices(same thing the Saudi's did with oil) tax breaks to tax revenue generators differs greatly from subsidies and mandates....is the lost revenue going to be added to your alt energy bill? you wish to compare oil deposits to trees/farming is almost as crazy as asking for depletion allowance for solar Fossil fuel taxes fund the hell out of the economy....I'll believe they will cut spending when pigs fly Why do you expect the fossil fuel based companies to develop renewable energy?(though they have spent billions doing so) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 China is cornering the market in solar panels and wind because they can undercut the prices(same thing the Saudi's did with oil)tax breaks to tax revenue generators differs greatly from subsidies and mandates....is the lost revenue going to be added to your alt energy bill? you wish to compare oil deposits to trees/farming is almost as crazy as asking for depletion allowance for solar Fossil fuel taxes fund the hell out of the economy....I'll believe they will cut spending when pigs fly Why do you expect the fossil fuel based companies to develop renewable energy?(though they have spent billions doing so) The Chinese are doing it by labor. There are already places with cheaper labor than China. We won't be dependent upon China. We will ALWAYS be depdent on cheap labor for all sorts of things beyond alternative energy, and as we've already seen cheap but somewhat skilled labor will move (it used to be Japan, and it has now moved to China, and in some cases is already leaving China). The Saudis can do it because they can obtain oil for less than most other countries because of the ease of extracting their oil, and its quality. Their oil isn't moving. It might run out eventually. The comparision is WRONG. And fossil fuels also have all sorts of hidden costs, our foreign policy just being one of them. Why is it crazy? Can't you see that's a HUGE advantage to have, especially when they've had it for a long time? Can't you see how it would affect the growth, research, and development of the industry? How about if the government would have given farmers a depletion allowance during the dust bowl based on much top soil they lost? I don't expect fossil fule companies to develop renewable energy, any more than farmers actually developed the fertilizers that are actually used today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 The Chinese are doing it with more than labor,they are avoiding our environmental restrictions to produce your 'clean' energy sources,as well as cornering the raw material markets and they are doing it on our dime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 The Chinese are doing it with more than labor,they are avoiding our environmental restrictions to produce your 'clean' energy sources,as well as cornering the raw material marketsand they are doing it on our dime. And they pay a price for their lack of environmental standards and will continue to. The costs of labor is tied to environmental standards. You want to turn this thread into an issue with China thread. I don't think we should have let China into the WTO. Going back further, I don't think we should have givem them into the MFN status. I think it is clear that the liberalization of China through commerciliazation hasn't really worked, isn't going to work, and I never understood why anybody thought it would work. I have ZERO problems with reconsidering our trade status with China, even if it means leaving the WTO. They haven't cornered the market on any raw materials and never likely will. Getting a lease to a resource in another country is a little different than having the resource under your feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 And they pay a price for their lack of environmental standards and will continue to.The costs of labor is tied to environmental standards. You want to turn this thread into an issue with China thread. I don't think we should have let China into the WTO. Going back further, I don't think we should have givem them into the MFN status. I think it is clear that the liberalization of China through commerciliazation hasn't really worked, isn't going to work, and I never understood why anybody thought it would work. I have ZERO problems with reconsidering our trade status with China, even if it means leaving the WTO. Agreed. I go against most libertarians on this one. Free trade isn't really free trade when one side cheats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 If they weren't cheating the cost of solar panels and windmills wouldn't have dropped,which leaves alt energy cost even higher( and more unsustainable) How many of your clean energy jobs depend on China raping the environment? add I'm not trying to make this about China,but economics require looking at the facts (and energy is all about economics) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 If they weren't cheating the cost of solar panels and windmills wouldn't have dropped,which leaves alt energy cost even higher( and more unsustainable)How many of your clean energy jobs depend on China raping the environment? Are you going to claim the oil pipeline parts, oil tankers, and drilling platform parts don't come from China? That those same advantages don't apply to the fossil fuel industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 Why would we need tankers for domestic sources? We still manufacture pipes,rigs and valves in the US....quality matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Why would we need tankers for domestic sources?We still manufacture pipes,rigs and valves in the US....quality matters Because we are never going to get all of our oil from domestic sources. We are never going to make sure that any of our oil is actually going to come from domestic sources. We also still manufacture solar panels and wind turbines in the US. (Funny, I took the one oil rig that I know the name of (the Horizon Deepwater rig), guess where it was made? NOT the US! It was made in S. Korea by Hyundai (another place with cheap labor and relatively lax envrionmental standards), and I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the stuff to actually make it came from China.) (Oh, and the steel for the Keystone XL Pipeline has already been bought from.......India.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 What do you expect from Brits and Canadians? :pfft: http://www.ussteel.com/corp/facilities/facilities.asp http://www.ussteel.com/corp/company/profile/about.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 What do you expect from Brits and Canadians? :pfft:http://www.ussteel.com/corp/facilities/facilities.asp http://www.ussteel.com/corp/company/profile/about.asp I can do that too: http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/01/obama-visits-ge-wind-turbine-plant/ http://www.biofuelwar.com/2011/02/energy-secretary-chu-tours-sharp-solar-facility/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 and nothing changes....GE?...the one that paid 0 taxes GE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 and nothing changes....GE?...the one that paid 0 taxes GE? They were just taking lessons from Exxon. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/04/06/90299/exxon-tax/ We can do a different company if it makes you feel better: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/04/06/president-obama-visits-langhorne-factory/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 I hope they do better than they did in Spain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I hope they do better than they did in Spain http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/46261.pdf "The recent report from King Juan Carlos University deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts. In addition, it lacks transparency and supporting statistics, and fails to compare RE technologies with comparable energy industry metrics. It also fails to account for important issues such as the role of government in emerging markets, the success of RE exports in Spain, and the fact that induced economic impacts can be attributed to RE deployment. Finally, differences in policy are significant enough that the results of analysis conducted in the Spanish context are not likely to be indicative of workforce impacts in the United States or other countries." There are a few other important points: 1. The prices have dropped from most of the Spain's experiment. 2. The technology is getting better. 3. Spain isn't paying the true costs of fossil fuel use in the way we do (i.e. they are essentially riding our coat tails in terms of foreign policy issues). I won't even get into the costs that neither the origainal study in Spain or the DOE study (that I linked) are taking into account when it comes to fossil fules: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/17/cost-of-coal-500-billion-year-in-u-s-harvard-study-finds/ "Full Cost of Coal $500 Billion/Year in U.S., Harvard Study Finds" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 I was wondering how long it would take you to expand the metrics even beyond FP. ---------- Post added November-27th-2011 at 11:27 PM ---------- I am going to have fun watching the coming meltdown and blowback http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/27/3288541/westar-lawsuit-says-meeting-epas.html#ixzz1evNWddBt “The EPA really kind of ambushed the utility, in terms of the process,” said David Springe, CURB's consumer counsel. “Clearly they're all working toward reducing emissions to the level the EPA wants. In their final order they were really radically different than the preliminary. They changed the mark they were supposed to hit and made it under a timeline that is simply not reasonable.” Whether the EPA sticks with its deadline or works with utilities, it's ultimately the consumer that pays, Springe said. “Whether it's January or 2015, they have to retrofit the plants and rates will go up,” he said. “I don't know that I've seen a full rate estimate, but it won't be small.” Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/27/3288541/westar-lawsuit-says-meeting-epas.html#ixzz1eyVL78r7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 I'm going to post in support of Peter's assertion of the green energy explosion Renewable power trumps fossil fuels for first time http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-renewables-20111125,0,2421278.story Renewable energy is surpassing fossil fuels for the first time in new power-plant investments, shaking off setbacks from the financial crisis and an impasse at the United Nations global warming talks. Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data. Accelerating installations of solar- and wind-power plants led to lower equipment prices, making clean energy more competitive with coal. "The progress of renewables has been nothing short of remarkable," United Nations Environment Program Executive Secretary Achim Steiner said in an interview. "You have record investment in the midst of an economic and financial crisis." Remarkable indeed now what is this overlooking???:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I was wondering how long it would take you to expand the metrics even beyond FP. ---------- Post added November-27th-2011 at 11:27 PM ---------- I am going to have fun watching the coming meltdown and blowback http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/27/3288541/westar-lawsuit-says-meeting-epas.html#ixzz1evNWddBt “The EPA really kind of ambushed the utility, in terms of the process,” said David Springe, CURB's consumer counsel. “Clearly they're all working toward reducing emissions to the level the EPA wants. In their final order they were really radically different than the preliminary. They changed the mark they were supposed to hit and made it under a timeline that is simply not reasonable.” Whether the EPA sticks with its deadline or works with utilities, it's ultimately the consumer that pays, Springe said. “Whether it's January or 2015, they have to retrofit the plants and rates will go up,” he said. “I don't know that I've seen a full rate estimate, but it won't be small.” Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/27/3288541/westar-lawsuit-says-meeting-epas.html#ixzz1eyVL78r7 I'm still waiting on the millions that are going to starve because the refergerated shipping industry is going to collapse because of the costs of banning CFCs, or the disasterous costs of the acid rain cap and trade program. Seriously, do know of a single case where the bad case scenarios of industry groups actually came true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 what about the consumer groups? you know the people that will pay the bill and vote .....keep riding that CFC horse,utilities are a bit different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.