[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Looking forward and seeing the increased energy needs associated with a population expanding 3 fold, I view wind, solar and hydro as local aids that won't supply the major needs of expansion. Each has a limitation .
But they do need to be exploited.
This is why nuclear concepts look advantageous. Few limitations of generation. True.....fission has the drawback of waste issues, but generation is cheap/ plentiful and the technology already mature.
Fusion I prefer, but it's going to take financial commitment I haven't seen from either party.

the "minor" sources need to be integrated into building design, imo (paticularly solar)....but methane from waste is a possibility, as is wind......rethinking the concept of "utilities" may sound pretty dreamy, but the idea of a company that has the gov in its back pocket because of the service it provides/product it distributes has helped create this whole feeling of "dependency"

imo, developers and homeowners must be burdened with some of the energy demands in their planning....it's insufficient that they pay a one time "fee" -however sizable- to a government agency, without bearing some responsibility for the increased consumption.....current building codes are increasingly "reactive", i.e., restrictive -particularly in CA- about "wasting" energy.....but do nothing proactive....nothing is codified about "creating" it....it seems a small step....and no more "socialistic" in concept that prescribing the u-value of insulation, the % of west facing windows, the kind of light fixtures that can be used, etc.

" forcing the issue of alternatives." Don't you think that puts an undue stress on society .....trying to fill a need vacated by restricted oil while the ability to facilitate an alternative is still an engineer's dream?

i think it's a moot point....as you say, it's gonna be painful....we already live in a culture that views pain as something to be deadened, and we both work hard and spend money to accomplish that as much as possible.....oil has been the vicodin of our pains from energy for decades....i'd feel much better about producing more of it if governments (city, county, state) were less reliant on free enterprise for a universal solution and actively pursing local solutions.....taking back the pain, as it were.

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I agree with you, open up the restricted areas.

Here's a novel concept that neither party will support. Open up the areas currently closed to oil exploration and require that half the lease fees and 3/4ths of the royalties go to funding alternative energy research and development. That would amount to 10's of billions of dollars per year. Problem is Congress will not allow such a sweet source of funding to be used on something so pedestrian as alternative energy research. It has no immediate return and it isn't "sexy" as to constituents. You have to remember that Congress persons don't look beyond the next election. They believe and to a certain extent we cause them to have a fear of the attitude of "What have you done for me lately". So what's the more immediate need funding social security or developing alternative energy resources?


Of course, if they could figure a way of harnessing all the hot air expended on this board America's energy crisis would be a fading memory.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Bastiat

........................................Of course, if they could figure a way of harnessing all the hot air expended on this board America's energy crisis would be a fading memory.

This is true.........I just made a grilled cheese sandwich from your post hot air. Thanks.

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by Wino

This is true.........I just made a grilled cheese sandwich from your post hot air. Thanks.

I hope you pull a Mama Cass with that sandwich.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

From what I have read from multiple sources , pumping the ANWR reserve , would bring about
.04 percent increase in crude supply.
Also , it would , theoretically , bring a reduction in price on the BBL of approx -- .41 cents --to .75 cents, and that would be many years from now .
Price at the pump ? , anybody's guess, whatever the market will bear.
The price of the barrel rose on average -- $ 2.60 over last weekend .
Makes the ANWR thing look not so earthshaking .
I am quoting figures from memory , but I believe they correct. >f

All the liberals like to quote the liberal EIA. However, just like there are two sides to everything, there are geologists who disagree with the EIA.

http://www.anwr.org/features/distort.htm

The conservatively estimated 2.6 billion bbl may not be a Prudhoe Bay, but it would make a strong contribution to U.S. petroleum supply. It would, for example, represent 12% of the current estimate for total U.S. oil reserves. It would approximated the country reserves of Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, or Gabon.

By any reasonable standard, 2.6 billion bbl of technically and economically recoverable oil is worth finding and producing. It represents wealth, jobs, incomes, and revenues for the Alaskan and federal governments.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Fidelista

From what I have read from multiple sources , pumping the ANWR reserve , would bring about
.04 percent increase in crude supply.
Also , it would , theoretically , bring a reduction in price on the BBL of approx -- .41 cents --to .75 cents, and that would be many years from now .
Price at the pump ? , anybody's guess, whatever the market will bear.
The price of the barrel rose on average -- $ 2.60 over last weekend .
Makes the ANWR thing look not so earthshaking .
I am quoting figures from memory , but I believe they correct. >f

http://www.anwr.org/features/distort.htm

Regardless of whether ANWR would add 12% to US reserves or 1% we need to do everything we can to add to US reserves. That includes drilling everywhere there is oil.

The dems don't care if our economy crashes due to not enough oil because they are adverse to using oil altogether (even though they all drive cars that use fossil fuel ). Well, I agree with getting off of oil, but not cold turkey. And I disagree with lying about numbers in an effort to discourage the idea of drilling.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Bastiat

Here's a novel concept that neither party will support. Open up the areas currently closed to oil exploration and require that half the lease fees and 3/4ths of the royalties go to funding alternative energy research and development. That would amount to 10's of billions of dollars per year. ....................

Excellent idea.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

http://www.anwr.org/features/distort.htm

Regardless of whether ANWR would add 12% to US reserves or 1% we need to do everything we can to add to US reserves. That includes drilling everywhere there is oil.

The dems don't care if our economy crashes due to not enough oil because they are adverse to using oil altogether (even though they all drive cars that use fossil fuel ). Well, I agree with getting off of oil, but not cold turkey. And I disagree with lying about numbers in an effort to discourage the idea of drilling.

It does get really old when we democrats are pictured to be uncaring of what happens to our nation. Grow up.

Now, Bastiat actually has a pretty good idea here. But it cannot move forward given the attitudes I see here so often.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by Rep

It does get really old when we democrats are pictured to be uncaring of what happens to our nation. Grow up.

Now, Bastiat actually has a pretty good idea here. But it cannot move forward given the attitudes I see here so often.

immprint avoids facts like the plague !

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Wino

Nothing to work on. Already know the answer. Nothing.

BTW you need to find some unbiased links for world oil problems than investing web sites or oil related. Hell, why not post the links to ExxonMobile or Shell. You are a hoot, if nothing else.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...iew/index.html

You said that Bush has never had energy proposals and I gave you a link to Lieberman criticizing Bush's energy proposal in 2000 before 9/11. He was criticizing Bush for trying to alarm people into thinking not exploring would put us at risk for high energy prices.

Nope, Wino can't see any vision there

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Rep

It does get really old when we democrats are pictured to be uncaring of what happens to our nation. Grow up.

Now, Bastiat actually has a pretty good idea here. But it cannot move forward given the attitudes I see here so often.

Bastiat actually sounds like Bush. Of course I agree regardless of whether its Bastiat's idea, Bush's idea, or Ted Kennedy's idea (yeah right).

It just seems to me that the dems continue to say that drilling for more oil is off the table.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

McCain is very disappointing---I was actually a supporter of his when he ran against Bush. Now he has become Bush Lite because his handlers are pretty much de-railing the straight talk express. Today, he even hired a Bush man to run his campaign---What that translates into is win at all costs.

On a positive note, the moderate Republicans are getting more of a voice and that can only mean positive things down the road. Maybe the fiscally conservative, socially liberterian wing of the party will be reborn.

We can only hope!

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Rep

...............

Now, Bastiat actually has a pretty good idea here. But it cannot move forward given the attitudes I see here so often.

What attitudes would that be?

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLI...iew/index.html

You said that Bush has never had energy proposals and I gave you a link to Lieberman criticizing Bush's energy proposal in 2000 before 9/11. He was criticizing Bush for trying to alarm people into thinking not exploring would put us at risk for high energy prices.

Nope, Wino can't see any vision there

Did Bush's Energy Policy include anything about making us less dependent on oil?

[Bastiat]

Originally Posted by Rep

Now, Bastiat actually has a pretty good idea here. But it cannot move forward given the attitudes I see here so often.

Originally Posted by Stoner

What attitudes would that be?

Add to that question....where is "here"?

BTW, no one addressed the issue....whats more important right now....social security or alternative energy?