WSJ/ The Non-Green Jobs Boom

[twa]

Equating funding the expansion of alt tech by policies that mandate its use is so far outside of the space effort as to be ridiculous.

How would the space program have done if we simply had mandated building more Saturn rockets?

This is not about research and development funding (which I fully support),it is about wise use of capital

Are PV panels a frigging moonshot now?

You want to know what is sad?

The idiots in Texas lead in alt energy development and research....try catching up

[oisn1]

Equating funding the expansion of alt tech by policies that mandate its use is so far outside of the space effort as to be ridiculous.

How would the space program have done if we simply had mandated building more Saturn rockets?

This is not about research and development funding (which I fully support),it is about wise use of capital

Are PV panels a frigging moonshot now?

You want to know what is sad?

The idiots in Texas lead in alt energy development and research....try catching up

It is true that I shouldn't equate them because the space effort was far more dubious and ridiculous when it was started. There was no clear economic benefit to that program. But, as is usually the case, innovations due to the research were developed that have created profit today. Think of the polymers and materials (even Velcro) that we use today that would not have been developed or refined without the funding of the space program.

Of course, there is a clear economic benefit to green energy research and development that anyone can see. We have a limited resource that is bound to run out, either through exhaustion or public disapproval. There is a new horizon of energy that is both publicly acceptable and desirable. The mandates (and they are very loosely called that) are about getting the ball moving. It forces companies to research and develop better alternative energy due to the fact that they will need to embrace that tech in the furture. If not, what incentive is there for anyone to begin modifying our energy plan? I'm not talking about citizens like yourself, who understand the long term. I'm talking about corporations like Exxon and Haliburton which have all the incentive in the world to not move forward and milk a dying energy policy for all its worth.

Think about the fact that the internet as we know it would not/could not have been created without the funding and mandates that government imposed on ISPs. And just like back then, we had people who could not see the vision of investing capital in a product that would pay back in the future. Conceptually the ideas are very similar. We are talking about ventures that will not be viable in the short-term. Now I understand some of the frustration in revamping our energy policy; it can be scary, especially to people very invested in non-renewable energy. But it is doubly important to our economy to brunt the damage that energy changes will have on it. We need to slowly, but increasingly, move towards renewable energy both to help job movement in our population and to take a lead

I'm not sure what your comment on Texas is supposed to prove. The biggest researchers of electric motors are car companies, that just so happened to lock away the research for decades until it became more viable (for them) to release. The "mandates" are an attempt to stifle that kind of lag and promote more active advancement.

A final note which you have never answered is what is your solution to this problem? You talk about the failure of alternative energy policies, yet you haven't explained what is the ideal we should be striving for. If you do that, we can better understand what is so scary about alternative energy.

[PeterMP]

Why the comparisons to things totally dissimilar?

If a farmer leases the land it is a tax deduction

If we charge solar firms for access to the sun's rays I will fully support a depletion allowance

What would charging for leases to the sun;s rays do to solar prices?

Are you claiming that oil companies don't get tax deductions on leased land?

If it is leased or owned, the oil companies get a tax deduction, but farmers only get a deduction in one case.

Solar firms pay to lease public land. The sun light is resource of that land.

Alt energy generation is not forbidden in large areas of the US....again totally dissimilar

Sure it is. You think that they'd be allowed to put in sort of alternative energy plant on ANWAR?

You think off shore is really any different for alternative energy:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/17/114329/off-shore-nc-waters-off-limits.html

"About two-thirds of offshore ocean areas eyed for potential wind farm development are off limits for the spinning turbines, according to a federal panel mapping North Carolina's ocean waters.

The federal panel won't issue a formal recommendation until this summer, but after a second meeting last week in Raleigh, the panel has issued provisional maps that show much of the state's ocean waters as being unsuitable for offshore wind farms. The task force will likely meet again in June.

The task force has X'd out large swaths of the Atlantic Ocean for military operations, fish habitats and bird habitats. The panel has scaled back an area of 10,564 square miles down to 3,679 miles, and the work is still ongoing."

1 The oil companies are not asking to be free of all restrictions(a rather foolish argument)

2 You could insert a right of purchase to any lease if the destination is a concern

3 Africa has never been the crossroads of civilization(though it will gain importance as it develops,and we ARE intervening militarily there NOW)

2. We could, but we don't, and at what cost/value would it be at. The oil companies aren't going to sign leases that completely separate the costs of the oil from the market value of oil. We tried price controls on oil recovered in the US. What did the oil companies do, they quit drilling wells in the US, got oil elsewhere, and then charged us more for the oil. You start only issuing leases saying they have to sell oil for much less than world market value, and they are going to do the samething.

3. You are joking, right? We didn't fight Saddam the first time because Kuwait was the cross worlds of civilation, and we didn't keep troops there and in Saudia Arabia because of that. And yes, we have some in the Horn of Africa area, but it dwarfs what we've spent w/ respect to the Middle East.

added

You think this is the way oil and gas exploration are treated?(your link)

Developers and environmentalists say Mrs. Feinstein has modified the monument legislation to address some of their issues. The 2.5 million acres set aside in a draft version of the monument act has been shrunk to around one million acres, allowing at least two projects to proceed. The bill also includes provisions designed to accelerate approval of renewable energy projects on federal land.

It is very similar.

There are 19 million acres in ANWR, of those only 1.5 million have been set aside, and like I said, if you wanted to use it as an alternative energy area, you'd run into the same problems by the environomental groups.

[twa]

What is scary is digging holes to simply fill back in.

My solution is funding alt energy research and development with dedicated proceeds from opening new areas to energy exploration....thereby creating wealth,jobs and manufacturing in the US,as well as energy security.

I have no problem with even mandates for a small percentage of alt energy suppliers as a means to advance tech and spur innovation(we do it here)...I do have a problem with not utilizing the natural resources we have in abundance while sending billions out of the country.....as well as mandating every 3rd person buy a Edsel.

Sending billions to China for PV panels and windmills that we then have to subsidize is a road to hell, Yet we do it and talk of how forward thinking and green we are.

makes me wanna puke

[PeterMP]

What is scary is digging holes to simply fill back in.

My solution is funding alt energy research and development with dedicated proceeds from opening new areas to energy exploration....thereby creating wealth,jobs and manufacturing in the US,as well as energy security.

I have no problem with even mandates for a small percentage of alt energy suppliers as a means to advance tech and spur innovation(we do it here)...I do have a problem with not utilizing the natural resources we have in abundance while sending billions out of the country.....as well as mandating every 3rd person buy a Edsel.

Sending billions to China for PV panels and windmills that we then have to subsidize is a road to hell, Yet we do it and talk of how forward thinking and green we are.

makes me wanna puke

Back to claiming the fossil fuel industry doesn't benefit from cheap labor in other countries?

---------- Post added November-29th-2011 at 03:24 PM ----------

I want to be clear about something. I COMPLETELY supported the first Gulf War and do today. The fact of the matter is that Kuwait had been a good ally of ours for an extended period of time and allowing them to be run over like that and simply turning our head would have been the wrong thing to do morally and geopolitically.

BUT let's be honest. We were good allies for with them because they had something to sell that they wanted to sell, and we had the money to buy it, and were willing to buy it at their prices.

And that thing was OIL. That was the FOUNDATION of the relationship.

If you took the oil out from underneath of Kuwait and put it in Ethiopia, the situation would have been COMPLETELY different because the whole history of the relationship would have been different.

[twa]

Back to claiming the fossil fuel industry doesn't benefit from cheap labor in other countries?.

Where did you pull that out of?

IF a essential product is cheaper somewhere else(say Saudi Arabia wishes to drop the price) there is a benefit that must be weighed against the loss domestically.

However not allowing that product to be made here(if cost effective) is pure idiocy.

Iraq was about far more than OUR oil needs,just as Iran is.

[PeterMP]

Where did you pull that out of?

IF a essential product is cheaper somewhere else(say Saudi Arabia wishes to drop the price) there is a benefit that must be weighed against the loss domestically.

However not allowing that product to be made here(if cost effective) is pure idiocy.

Iraq was about far more than OUR oil needs,just as Iran is.

1. Not allowing somebody to do something on public land is NOT the same as not allowing them to not make a product. If Nike comes to us and says, we can make sneakers in the US, if you lease us that nice swamp land down in LA for $X/year to build a factory and a port to make and ship sneakers, our answer should NOT be an automatic ok. The short term benefits of the money have to be weighed against potential longer costs with respect to the larger public commuity.

2. Separating OUR oil needs from everybody else's isn't really possible as oil is sold on a global market. OUR oil need is related to and based on the oil need of everybody else.

The fact of the matter is that we are as active in the ME as we are because of oil. Take that oil and move it to the Horn of Africa 100 years ago and our involvment in the ME as compared to the Horn of Africa would have flipped.

[twa]

2. Separating OUR oil needs from everybody else's isn't really possible as oil is sold on a global market. OUR oil need is related to and based on the oil need of everybody else.

.

But we can separate our energy security if domestic sources are a option..... separating the price is a different matter,but one that is directly effected by supply/demand.

Even if all new oil and gas was sold to another nation we still benefit from jobs/royalties/taxes and manufacturing here

Even if energy independent our interests still aligns with our allies needs,as do our obligations

unless ya want Ron Pauls world

add

Democrats need to get real about U.S. energy policy

The former generation of Democratic legislators would have embraced the energy opportunities before the U.S. now. Whoever is president in 2013 will have a rare chance to transform the energy picture.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ebinger-energy-20111128,0,1503960.story

By Charles K. Ebinger

November 28, 2011

Let me say upfront that I have always been a Democrat. However, I also vote my conscience and have supported independent candidates. Today, energy policy is one area where I think my party is wrong.

I wasn't always a disillusioned Democrat. For decades, the party's policies ensured that the United States had adequate supplies of domestic oil, natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power and uranium to fuel our growing economy while providing good-paying jobs to the men and women who produced our energy and transported it. These policies helped create America's affluence of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s.

Even before then, it was a Democratic president — Franklin D. Roosevelt — who transformed the lives of many of our poorest citizens by creating the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration. These projects brought electricity and industrialization to areas that lagged the rest of the country economically. It was Lyndon B. Johnson and not a "free-market" Republican who transformed East Texas through electrification, setting off an economic boom responsible for the economic success of Texas to this day.

...

I know many of my friends — Democratic and Republican — may dismiss my ideas as too far-reaching or as pie in the sky. But we need a vision now that all Americans accept and one they are ready to help make a reality. The Democratic leadership must start facing the hard truths about energy and stop proselytizing that renewable sources of energy can replace the fossil fuels currently in use. This is not to argue that the reduction of fossil fuel emissions is not an urgent priority. However, the emphasis must be on job creation and on building the 21st century energy infrastructure that will reestablish America's primacy in the world. The size of our energy resources gives us the wherewithal to make this transition.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Give the American people the tools and they will finish the job.

Charles K. Ebinger is director of the Brookings Institution's Energy Security Initiative.

[PeterMP]

But we can separate our energy security if domestic sources are a option..... separating the price is a different matter,but one that is directly effected by supply/demand.

Even if all new oil and gas was sold to another nation we still benefit from jobs/royalties/taxes and manufacturing here

Even if energy independent our interests still aligns with our allies needs,as do our obligations

unless ya want Ron Pauls world

add

Democrats need to get real about U.S. energy policy

The former generation of Democratic legislators would have embraced the energy opportunities before the U.S. now. Whoever is president in 2013 will have a rare chance to transform the energy picture.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ebinger-energy-20111128,0,1503960.story

By Charles K. Ebinger

November 28, 2011

Let me say upfront that I have always been a Democrat. However, I also vote my conscience and have supported independent candidates. Today, energy policy is one area where I think my party is wrong.

I wasn't always a disillusioned Democrat. For decades, the party's policies ensured that the United States had adequate supplies of domestic oil, natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power and uranium to fuel our growing economy while providing good-paying jobs to the men and women who produced our energy and transported it. These policies helped create America's affluence of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s.

Even before then, it was a Democratic president — Franklin D. Roosevelt — who transformed the lives of many of our poorest citizens by creating the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration. These projects brought electricity and industrialization to areas that lagged the rest of the country economically. It was Lyndon B. Johnson and not a "free-market" Republican who transformed East Texas through electrification, setting off an economic boom responsible for the economic success of Texas to this day.

...

I know many of my friends — Democratic and Republican — may dismiss my ideas as too far-reaching or as pie in the sky. But we need a vision now that all Americans accept and one they are ready to help make a reality. The Democratic leadership must start facing the hard truths about energy and stop proselytizing that renewable sources of energy can replace the fossil fuels currently in use. This is not to argue that the reduction of fossil fuel emissions is not an urgent priority. However, the emphasis must be on job creation and on building the 21st century energy infrastructure that will reestablish America's primacy in the world. The size of our energy resources gives us the wherewithal to make this transition.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Give the American people the tools and they will finish the job.

Charles K. Ebinger is director of the Brookings Institution's Energy Security Initiative.

NOBODY is saying that we can quit using fossil fuels. We ARE allowing companies to drill for oil on public lands.

per capita we use more oil than any major European country and other well developed economies like Japan and S. Korea. Even if you remove what we produce, we use more than most of the other major European economies, including England, France, and Germany per capita (assuming they produce ZERO (which isn't true)).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

The same is also true for natural gas and coal per captia (I didn't bother to check on the replacment if you remove what we produce):

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_nat_gas_con_percap-natural-gas-consumption-per-capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con_by_ene_sec_percap-coal-consumption-sector-per-capita

(Except for Russia, if you consider them Europe and a few other countries for coal, but we are talking about countries like Span and Poland)

How about CO2 emissions per capita?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Behind all of the major European countries again.

Maybe we are just super productive?

Even if you account for GDP, it doesn't look good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions

We do better than the likes of Canada, China, India, the Chezc Republic, and Vietnam.

The fact of the matter is that if something happened in the Middle East the majority of European countries would be better off than us, and essentially all of the major ones because they are less dependent on oil PERIOD, and on oil imports (though that wouldn't matter because there is no reason to believe the oil would stay here any way).

Seriously, what tools do we need to finish what job?

Looking at our fossil fuel usage, you'd think we either were a developing economy, had no interest in conservation, or lived in a relatively spasely populated ice box (e.g. Canada).

Talk about empty rhetoric. The fact of the matter is based on our population, productivity and resources that should allow us to generate energy via other mechanisms, our fossil fuel consumption STINKS.

Once upon a time, conservation (in terms of saving something for future generation) was a big part of the Republican mind set. Now it is we should use as much of the resources as fast as we can.

Why?

So we can achieve

Achieve what?

More consumption?

Seriously, what are we fiinishing?

[twa]

Talk about empty rhetoric. The fact of the matter is based on our population, productivity and resources that should allow us to generate energy via other mechanisms, our fossil fuel consumption STINKS.

what other mechanisms?

Hydro,nuclear,geothermal are all sources worth expanding and cost efficient where applicable at this time(left off co-generation...add that for my homeboys)

I agree we waste too much, this is a land of plenty.....complete with lard asses and gas hogs

trying to compare us with other countries is a waste also

[PeterMP]

what other mechanisms?

Hydro,nuclear,geothermal are all sources worth expanding and cost efficient where applicable at this time(left off co-generation...add that for my homeboys)

I agree we waste too much, this is a land of plenty.....complete with lard asses and gas hogs

trying to compare us with other countries is a waste also

The Mojave desert has some of the larger annual solar irradiance per a year making it one of the best places on Earth to generate solar energy. Parts of our coastline and the centeral planes are similar with respect to wind energy.

In general, large swaths of this country are much more conducive to solar energy production than found in many European countries and Canada.

Why is it waste? So we can stick our head in the sand and talk about how great we are without actually worrying about if it is actually true?

[twa]

Sure put them out in the middle of nowhere(if ya can get it past the Greens) then build the transmission lines that will bleed electricity the whole distance.

Wind is a better option,but still not cost efficient,and suffers from the same distance issue in most cases

Both require supplemental generation capacity....meaning building new NG capacity (which makes me smile ) and require a great deal of natural resources and money to build.

you want to talk about waste while promoting inefficiency?:evilg:

Why not go the cheapest route(that also is greener) and simply expand NG generation while we improve Alt source technology?

Or is the idea to raise energy costs to European levels,thereby reducing demand?

IF that is the goal say so and simply raise taxes on energy

[PeterMP]

Sure put them out in the middle of nowhere(if ya can get it past the Greens) then build the transmission lines that will bleed electricity the whole distance.

Wind is a better option,but still not cost efficient,and suffers from the same distance issue in most cases

Both require supplemental generation capacity....meaning building new NG capacity (which makes me smile ) and require a great deal of natural resources and money to build.

you want to talk about waste while promoting inefficiency?:evilg:

Why not go the cheapest route(that also is greener) and simply expand NG generation while we improve Alt source technology?

Or is the idea to raise energy costs to European levels,thereby reducing demand?

IF that is the goal say so and simply raise taxes on energy

Las Vegas is IN the Mojave desert.

Las Angeles suburban spraw is spreading into the Mojave desert.

We aren't talking about that large of distances.

And yes they require money. ALL energy generation requires money.

Wind isn't cost effecient w/ respect to what? Fossil fuels. Don't you get it? You aren't paying the true costs of your fossil fuel usage in your electric bill. You aren't paying for foreign policy decisions. You aren't paying for the health costs. You aren't seening the special tax breaks they have been getting for nearly a century.

They aren't effecient, if you so some very selective math (As I've already said in this thread, if you want to post something intelligent related to the true costs/benefits of fossil fuels as compared to alternatives, I'd love to see it.).

We already lead the world in natural gas production AND are expanding it. Your suggesting we do something that we already are doing.

The point I was making with respect to Europe is that you seem to want to overstate their vulnerability to changes in oil prices and fossil fuels in general with respect to ours. You seem to want to claim that we are in the middle east for some large amount the benefit of European countries.

The fact of the matter is that their economies are much less tied to oil and fossil fuels. That combined with the fact that fossil fuels are a global market, changes in fossil fuel prices affect our economy to a greater extent. Europe is better positioned to survive destablized Middle East than us.

You seemed to want to suggest that we needed more fossil fuel consumption to carry out some great task that only Americans could do. My point was that we already do.

Certainly, one way to deal with the hosts of issues related to hidden costs of fossil fuels (foreign policy, health, and specialized tax deductions) would be to decrease demand.

[twa]

True costs are a funny thing...What is the true costs of solar or wind?

Or are you gonna mine and manufacture them with pixie dust?

Why not put solar on all those buildings in Vegas then?

[PeterMP]

True costs are a funny thing...What is the true costs of solar or wind?

Or are you gonna mine and manufacture them with pixie dust?

Why not put solar on all those buildings in Vegas then?

I agree. However, I'm not the one running around stating that X is more effecient than Y.

The fact of the matter is that at this time, any calculation of effeciency that doesn't try and take into account real world costs is going to benefit fossil fuels because they've benefited from government intervention hiding their true costs for a much longer period of time.

**EDIT**

I don't know what the true cost of any altenative energy method is. I never have claimed to. I do know that their current costs given the current situation of some, especially in certain areas, are getting REALLY close to fossil fuels.

Now, you can argue that the current situation includes subsidies for them, but the fact of the matter is that for a LONG TIME now the fossil fuel industry has benefited from "subsidies" from the government in different forms.

You can't argue that X isn't effecient with respect to Y w/o specific government intervention aiding it (e.g. alternative energy subsidies and mandates) and so X is inferior when Y has all sorts of OTHER types of current and historic government interventions benefiting it.

The discussion of energy consumption in this country changes DRASTICALLY if you start from we don't REALLY KNOW if fossil fuels are more cost affective than non-fossil fuels.

[twa]

I agree. However, I'm not the one running around stating that X is more effecient than Y.

The discussion of energy consumption in this country changes DRASTICALLY if you start from we don't REALLY KNOW if fossil fuels are more cost affective than non-fossil fuels.

The DOE is doing so, they deal in tangibles.

You can certainly change any discussion by changing the focus or adding intangibles,...... I go with the cash value/costs of good and services

We can entertain the intangible costs of diverting more money to alt energy and it's inefficiency as well as starving children in Africa.

How many lives could we save with those dollars?

Are you heartless enough to see people starve to enable you to type on a message board while being green?

This is fun.

[PeterMP]

The DOE is doing so, they deal in tangibles.

You can certainly change any discussion by changing the focus or adding intangibles,...... I go with the cash value/costs of good and services

We can entertain the intangible costs of diverting more money to alt energy and it's inefficiency as well as starving children in Africa.

How many lives could we save with those dollars?

Are you heartless enough to see people starve to enable you to type on a message board while being green?

This is fun.

There are tangible costs of our military presence in the Middle East.

There was a REAL cost to fighting the first Gulf War.

[twa]

There are tangible costs of our military presence in the Middle East.

There was a REAL cost to fighting the first Gulf War.

There was a real cost not too as well.

I guess you will support the next war over rare earth prospects to avoid impacting the environment here then?

Personally I vote to eliminate the deadwood in the population as a means towards a better quality of life and health for the survivors AND THE PLANET.

Are the odds better of global warming getting ya first?

Now that I ponder it perhaps just shutting down electrical altogether would be best since it comes with increased cancer risks.

getting back to nature would thin the population w/o my having to pick winners;)

add

Great News the EPA assures us no power shortages will be allowed to happen.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196195-epa-upcoming-regulations-wont-cause-power-outages?utm_campaign=E2Wire&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

time for me to get a generator :laugh:

[PeterMP]

There was a real cost not too as well.

Such as?

[twa]

Such as?

Bump a old thread and I'll play there, we are straying far afield

a short version is balance of power

[Renegade7]

Tell the airline industry that alternative fuel push is a waste of time. They are getting slaughtered right now because of fuel prices, and last I checked, it's still over $3 a gallon is gas for the rest of us...

[twa]

Tell the airline industry that alternative fuel push is a waste of time. They are getting slaughtered right now because of fuel prices, and last I checked, it's still over $3 a gallon is gas for the rest of us...

And what present process can provide it cheaper?

Once again I will REPEAT opposing pouring money into larger scale ,non-cost effective tech is a waste.

One that actually INCREASES present costs to the airlines and the rest of us.

Unicorn farts don't make good jet fuel

[PeterMP]

Bump a old thread and I'll play there, we are straying far afield

a short version is balance of power

Balance of power isn't what you were talking about in terms of tangible costs. REAL actual dollars are being spent to mantain a military presence in the Middle East.

[Renegade7]

And what present process can provide it cheaper?

Once again I will REPEAT opposing pouring money into larger scale ,non-cost effective tech is a waste.

One that actually INCREASES present costs to the airlines and the rest of us.

Unicorn farts don't make good jet fuel

No one is going to use "unicorn farts".

And the problem is the green technology is still in the early stages, so of course it isn't ready yet. I don't have a problem with it because if we don't find an alternative fuel source, it's not like the oil companies are going to lower our prices to be nice to us. They've already set a new "normal" for fuel costs while continuing to make billions of dollars, they could care less about us nor whether or not we can afford it.

The Human Race isn't meant to stay stuck on this rock forever, so if we want to spread out (we'll eventually have no choice), we have to get passed the "oil age". Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, so finally having a hydrogen-based economy with fusion power capability will allow our economic growth to become damn near limitless. It's the 21st century, man, what you want to wait until the 22nd to get serious???

[The Evil Genius]

I suspect that TWA also has a vested interest in the US staying a slave to fossil fuels.

Without that reliance, his home state would be a bankrupt cesspool.