quote: we need to address a major problem facing our country -- and that is our nation's growing dependence on foreign sources of energy.
So says the man that met with Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in the last few days to try and wrangle MORE oil exports out of him among other things.
quote: And I was asking the soldiers, you know, what was on your mind -- what was on their mind. And a fellow said, why don't you lower gas prices -- gasoline prices, Mr. President? Obviously, gasoline prices were on his mind. I said, I wish I could; if I could, I would. I explained to him that the higher cost of gasoline is a problem that has been years in the making.
To which the soldier should have replied "well then why the hell haven't you done anything in the last four years Mr. President?"
He then blabs on for several paragraphs about how technology is our saving grace, which I believe it is also, but it's incredibly nonspecific for such a supposedly awesome energy plan.
He then says we should build more powerplants. I'm not a huge fan of nuclear waste, but apparently we can technology our way out of that one. Regardless, nuclear energy is non-polluting and overall is better for the environment than the burning of fossil fuels. So, score one for the President.
He goes on to say that we need to become less dependent on fossil fuels, and then advocates spending billions on coal, diesal, oil, and natural gas exploration and mining. Perhaps someone needs to explain to the President what fossil fuels really are, he must have missed it in his briefing.
I don't understand how he can say the government needs to spend less, and be more responsible, when he wants to spend billions upon billions on mythical technologies to make dirty polluting energy into clean energy, when he could easily spend those billions creating a renweable energy system in America that doesn't have to be purified. He isn't making any sense at all to me. The only reason I can see is his connections to the polluting industries themselves.
But my most problematic question, is this: How is this responsible, environmentally friendly, energy legislation?
I'm just glad the Democrats in congress have enough of a backbone to stop this from becoming law. Now they just need to take a step further and introduce REAL energy legislation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's responsible, environmentally friendly energy policy because any time the Bush administration has proposed weakening environmental standards and protections, they've called it "Clean " whatever.
Wer're loosening air polution standards. Let's call it the Clean Air Act. We're decimating forests. Let's call it the Heathy Forest Initiative.
Leading scientists from Harvard have published a study that says that mercury levels are higher and more dangerous than we want peopel to believe. Let's forbid the EPA from considering that report and call it clarifying the process.
Speaking of the EPA, let's forbid them from telling people that the air around the Twin Towers site it toxic and let's call it protecting them.
When they're not trying to slip environmental policies that are direct gifts to industry through when no one's watching, they'll call it the opposite of what they're doing and hope that people won't call them on it. But thank god the Democrats are pussilanimous pieces of industry-owned crap that won't do anything about it. Otherwise people might think that our grandchildren being able to breathe without filtration equipment is something to be concerned about.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Clean Air Act is actually good. You're thinking of the Clear Skies Initiave. THAT is crap.
[ April 28, 2005, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The nuclear stuff is a good idea.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
D'oh! I knew that. It gets so hard to keep track of what the Republicanly Correct name for things are as opposed to things that are actually called what they are intended to be.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Um...far be it from me to object to renewable energy research, Lyrhawn. But it remains true that it could take years before a plan is in place, and in the meanwhile we are still badly in need of coal, oil, and natural gas. Notice those high fuel prices lately?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm convinced that if GWB read anything at all in his school years it was Orwell's 1984. Unfortunately, he seems to have thought it was a "how to" manual.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
To be fair, I don't know what COULD have been done to avert the current upswing in gas prices, if one assumes that 4 years were all that were available to have done the planning and implementation.
Surely the war is using up lots of gas, so that's a factor.
But with refineries at capacity EVERYWHERE, we're basically in a pickle.
The ideas for moving MUCH FASTER to more expensive (currently) alternatives or rationing, etc. are probably not going to get a fair hearing because of our experience in the Carter years. No President is going to want to do that again.
The main issue I see is that we aren't doing nearly enough NOW to forestall the worse problems coming at us, and we aren't acting strategically across multiple administrations. Each new Admin undoes whatever the previous one was doing, and makes up its own new set of initiatives.
Basically, this IS one of those "we should've done something starting in the 1970's" kinds of things.
The fact that the average auto sold in the US gets 23 mpg is insane.
Nuclear power is okay, but the problem with the waste is beyond serious. We just don't have good places to store it and the technology to make it non-radioactive is still the stuff of science fiction. Maybe someday...
Hydrogen fuel cell stuff is still a decade away.
And through all this, we know that even if we elminated the use of oil for transportation and electricity/heating, we'd still have a signficant dependence on the stuff because we need plastics and chemicals.
There are no easy or quick fixes.
And we are notoriously bad as a Nation at doing things like picking a direction and sticking to it.
I'm actually in favor of taking these decisions OUT of the hands of Presidential administrations. We need a group of technocrats to set a policy and manage the process long term.
Sadly, our way of government does not have good models for how to do this. We don't have a structure in place that would allow us to move some critical decisions to a body that will remain stable over decades.
At least I can't think of one.
Oh...well...maybe Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve (or whatever it's really called).
But maybe that's what we need for energy policy.
Hmm...
I wonder.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Tangent:
quote:We just don't have good places to store it
Yeah, we do, though not in *massive* amounts. Cheap and safe, too. Deep seabed burial. Same technology that's already used for drilling at those depths. Nothing but bacteria lives down there and the contamination is on the order of a metre around the deposited barrel over a 24,000 year period.
Why the American government in particular is pursuing the land-based Mount Yucca project in spite of the fact that earthquakes have occurred in the region is simply beyond my understanding.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Um...far be it from me to object to renewable energy research, Lyrhawn. But it remains true that it could take years before a plan is in place, and in the meanwhile we are still badly in need of coal, oil, and natural gas. Notice those high fuel prices lately?
Solar power exists now. Wind power exists now. Tidal energy exists now. Biomass/Thermal power exists now.
Clean coal does not. Alaskan oil is 10 years away.
Yeah I've noticed those high oil prices, I fill up every week just like you do. You want to tell me how Bush nixing better fuel economy standards for American autos is going to solve your gas problems and mine?
The old argument that renewable energy is in the future and we have to make it work with fossil fuels doesn't fly anymore. Renewable energy is here, but America might as well be the third world for all the progress we are making in using it, especially when compared to European countries that are thriving off it, and for that matter, are getting big boosts to their economies from production of these materials.
But nevermind me. I'm just a crazy tree hugger. Let's keep on truckin! Burn that oil! Stoke those coal fires! Gimme a 9mpg Hummer every day of the week! If gas prices go up let's just blame the Middle East and find some other pump to suck dry! Yeah!
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
We're not running into an energy crisis so much as a liquid fuel crisis. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and nuclear energy won't help. Which is not to say it's a bad idea to develop our renewable energy prospects — far from it — but we really need to get cracking on the problem of long term non-fossil oil supply. So I'd like to see some of the funding that's going to the hydrogen pipe dream diverted into biofuels research. And I don't mean paying farmers to grow corn for ethanol. Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
'Cause the more we use, the faster it'll all be gone. And then we won't be dependent on it any more. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Well, neither one of these will bear fruit right away, but they look promising:
quote: The ideas for moving MUCH FASTER to more expensive (currently) alternatives or rationing, etc. are probably not going to get a fair hearing because of our experience in the Carter years. No President is going to want to do that again
You can say that again. Hydrocarbons are currently the most efficient source of energy we have. We should continue to fund research into alternatives so that they become more cost effective, but a large scale transition at this point to more expensive energy sources would be an economic disaster.
quote: I'm actually in favor of taking these decisions OUT of the hands of Presidential administrations. We need a group of technocrats to set a policy and manage the process long term.
This is a very interesting idea Bob. An independent body that functions like the Federal Reserve Board may be exactly what we need. It seems that many needed changes are blocked by both parties out of fear that the opposite party might have a political success of some kind. Can you imagine if monetary policy was set by congress and the president? What a disaster that would be.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks holden, I think it's time.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Could someone sort something out for me?
Petroleum is drilled for in places throughout the world, from the North Sea to dry deserts of Saudi Arabia... from the colds of Alaska to the heat of Venezuela. The first American oil fields were in Pennsylvania.
So where is there more oil? I know, oil is bad, but is what we are working on now all there is? Are there any more untapped areas outside of ANWR?
Have we pretty much used it all up?
I know this sounds stupid to ask, but have we really tried just about everywhere? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm no expert, but...back in the 1970's (when "gas crisis" really meant something!!!) the going wisdom was that all the major oil deposits had been discovered except, perhaps, those in undersea deposits.
Estimates at the time stated that we had about 50 years of oil left on the planet.
Since then, ways of getting more of the oil out of any given deposit have helped alleviate the pending crisis, and, I believe, the size of some of the oil fields have been revised upwards.
So...we're not running out in the next 15 years (as was projected).
But, I believe the expectation that there are new untapped resources waiting to be discovered is pretty low. Waiting to be exploited, however, are some fairly large areas/reserves.
No real data, but that's my current understanding.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
on the flip side, China's industrial growth was not forseen. She is drinking up much of the world's oil.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The crisis is more than just liquid fuel, although that is a part of it.
Either way, Bush's energy plan doesn't demand higher fuel economy standards, which it should to help alleviate the liquid fuel crisis. His answer isn't to reduce the amount we use, it's to get MORE of it so we can use it faster and more abundantly than ever before.
Just how deep down the oil well does this country have to go before we realize we're going to hit bottom?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: Estimates at the time stated that we had about 50 years of oil left on the planet.
Actually, estimates given by reporters usually mis-stated actual projections. One of the first descriptions I heard of "peak oil" made the case that those projections should actually have been stated: "in 50 years we will start running out of oil," or "in 50 years demand will exceed production." Estimates ranged from 30 to 90 years.
In the 50's the estimate was that we would "run out of oil" in the late 60's or early 70's. We did, insofar as that was when oil production peaked in the continental U.S.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
During WWII, the U.S. went on austerity. Gasoline rationing was 3 gallons a week per family, and it was enforced largely by public support. People literally put their cars up on blocks for the duration of the war, planted victory gardens, ran scrap drives, recycled cooking fat (for explosives).
They did without out of a sense of patriotism. Today we waste, waste, waste and call THAT patriotism!
What an incredibly messed up sense of righteousness!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Indeed. I was thinking something like this today.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think we need Kennedy style call to arms. Ask not what your country can do for you and all that.
A lot of America's ills could be solved through a little can do spirit, and some sacrificing for the sake of the nation.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Aww, but self-sacrificing is so unpopular! And I hate the bus!
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
***REMINDER***
The #2 contributor to George W. Bush's campaigns has been Exxon-Mobil.
If he wanted us to be less dependant on oil, he'd probably not be sucking straight cash from the worlds largest oil company.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Er...the last I heard, there weren't very many ways left to increase fuel efficiency that wouldn't drastically reduce passenger safety. The only easy way, after all, is to reduce the amount of material in the vehicle, making it lighter--and more vulnerable. There's only so much of that you can do.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No Mabus, they can build better engines and other car parts that help increase fuel efficiency. You think if you compare the weight of a Humvee to a Honda Civic that the MPG will equal out as a measure of weight vs. fuel efficiency?
It won't. It's a matter of parts.
And for that matter, Hybrids should be more heavily promoted, en masse, selling like hot cakes, selling out, selling EVERYWHERE!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
A passenger of an SUV is about 11% more likely to die on a passenger/mile basis (based on insurance data, rather than crash test results). The primary cause seems to be rollover accidents, but also a general increase in the number of accidents overall.
SUVs are also about 25 times more likely to cause death in a car that they strike, as opposed to collisions between two sedans. This is partly because of their greater weight, and hence greater impact, but also because of their higher stance. They hit higher, and that positioning means that they can make contact with the passenger compartment more easily. In crash tests, passengers in SUVs are only about 3 times safer, compared to the 25 times greater danger that they pose to other passenger vehicles.
So we have vehicles that are sold largely on the basis that they are "safer," except that they aren't, and they make other people less safe also.
Add to that the fact that SUVs get really lousy gas mileage...
Posted by Ele (Member # 708) on :
You think he's pandering to his contributors?
Heck no! Why should he do that when his years of "public service" (a fairly laughable choice of words in this context) are winding down?
He's thinking of his own retirement.
~Ele
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:A passenger of an SUV is about 11% more likely to die on a passenger/mile basis (based on insurance data, rather than crash test results). The primary cause seems to be rollover accidents, but also a general increase in the number of accidents overall.
I think I'd like to see the citation for this. I don't think it's true. In fact, estimates of "passenger miles of travel" are very difficult to come by, and they should be looked at with a very skeptical eye. Insurance companies may have data on claims paid for property damage and personal injury, but they are still are going to have a tough time normalizing on person miles of travel. Finally, when looking at crash data, if you're going to get at the issue of "passenger injury risk" you'd have to have data on all the people in the vehicle (those injured as well as those not injured). No state collects this. Period. The data just don't exist.
There's even some reason to question the pronouncements about rollover risk. Even the people who purported to demonstrate this propensity in vehicle testing found out that it's VERY difficult to get any vehicle to roll in an untripped manner. Tripped rollovers (hitting a curb or other obstruction) are easy for EVERY vehicle type. Anyway, NHTSA is eating their hat on the old rollover bug-a-boo. Others are finding it difficult to win cases against manufacturers because the data are tending to show that these vehicles typically rollover when the driver does something stupid like overloading it, driving way too fast for conditions, and the like.
The other bit about mismatch in bumper height is definitely true. It's a serious issue, but, if anything, it leaves the people inside the higher vehicle at a distinct advantage, as you mention.
However, there are still plenty of reasons to dislike SUV mania in the US.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, I don't know where I heard it originally, but the 11% figure is in here. It's worded differently, but it's there.
quote: Some press reports indicate that SUVs are more dangerous than cars because people riding in SUVs were nearly 11% more likely to die in an accident compared to people in passenger cars. Indeed, the death rate per 100,000 registered vehicles was slightly higher for SUVs (16.5 deaths per 100,000 vehicles) than it was for ordinary cars (15 deaths).
Ah...okay. It's not saying what you think it's saying. Or what this guy thinks it's saying.
Normalizing the number of deaths by #registered vehicles tells you, literally, the number of people who died in SUVs divided by the number of SUVs there are in the country. So, if that RATE is higher, it could mean one of several things:
1) There are incredibly few SUVs and so you're dealing with the law of small numbers and the rate is artificially high. That's not the case here, but always look for this kind of thing first in traffic safey data.
2)These vehicles are actually deadlier -- they get in more crashes than other vehicles and those crashes are more severe. And it's the vehicle's fault (bad designs, less safety features than other types of vehicles).
3) They have more people in them than cars, so when a bad crash happens, more people die. This might be an indicator that, for example, some people are opting for SUVs instead of vans for the "soccer mom" type duties that a family might've used a station wagon for in prior years. At any rate, they might be having more deaths per fatal crash than regular cars have because they simply carry more people on average. And the risk per trip is no greater than in any other vehicle.
4) The people who buy SUVs might be "different" from other drivers. Less safe in their behavior. There's a possible indication of this in the alcohol-involvement data that he cites later in the piece. But it's also possible that their driving patterns are different and they themselves aren't any more dangerous on average, but simply that they are using SUVs for commutes in the most dangerous parts of the country and at the most dangerous times of day/days of week; whereas other vehicles are either used off-peak (as is probably the case with at least a certain proportion of the "vans" that people buy) or used in ALL time periods (as is the case for cars). Nothing definitive here.
Anyway...these numbers don't say anything about passenger miles traveled as a denominator. The author seems to think they do. He certainly left you with that impression and I can see how you would've reached it from what he said.
But he's got the wrong denominator for the argument he wants to make.
Still, it's nice to see traffic safety in the news. Even if they did get it wrong.
edit to add: I noticed that he doesn't explicitly say this, but I suspect his data where he talks about SUV "crashes" probably includes deaths of people outside the SUV (i.e., in the cars...) Unfortunately, he doesn't give references for his "press reports of 11% more likely..." so I'm not sure where he's getting that.
The rollover stuff is interesting. As I mentioned, there's some question as to the best way to go about analyzing rollover propensity and differential safety IN a rollover.
I like to look only at single vehicle crashes (it's a purer case in which you're pretty sure that most of the time it's something that the driver did, or the vehicle had a problem, or the roadway had a flaw). But not some other driver or pedestrian getting into the mix.
I also like to look at first-event rollovers. That is...the first BAD (damage causing) thing that happened during the crash was a rollover. (we call this a "first-event rollover").
Anyway, it's been awhile since I looked at the statistics for SUVs in general versus passenger cars in general. Maybe I should take another look. The data weren't all that clear in the past. And I think, in general, SUVs have been getting better as time goes on.
I guess I'll have to go look at this again.
[ April 29, 2005, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
So how do I plug my truck into the nuclear power plant?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A lot of extension cords.
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
Solar power exists now. - $0.25 per kWh Wind power exists now. - $0.05-0.8 per kWh Tidal energy exists now. - $0.09 per kWh Biomass/Thermal power exists now. - $0.06-0.11 per kWh --- coal power - $0.0185 per kWh nuclear power - $0.0171 per kWh natural gas power - $0.0406 per kWh oil power - $0.0441 per kWh
Solar power is more than 14.5 times the cost of nuclear power. Until the prices come down, the so-called "renewable" energy resources will not be used on a large scale.
Jesse
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
Also, for everyone freaking out about running out of oil - there is more oil in Colorado than the rest of the world. (The vast majority is in oil shale and is currently uneconomical to use.)
quote: He certainly left you with that impression and I can see how you would've reached it from what he said.
Actually, I first heard it on the radio (hard to cite) and since have heard the 11% figure from various reliable sounding sources. I just looked for the first cite I could find, 'cause I knew it was out there.
The radio report used the passenger/mile reference, I'm pretty sure. But that was not so significant as their main point was that the information you hear about how "safe" SUVs are usually comes from car manufacturers and is based on crash tests, rather than real world data.
I've always felt that one place where SUVs suffer in safety is stopping distance. They're heavier, so they take longer to stop. Everytime someone pulls out in front of my car and I jam on the brakes - and avoid an accident - I think it's a good thing I drive a small car with a short stopping distance.
The same thing applies to cornering force. I'd guess that in addition to the higher center of gravity causing rollovers, another contributing factor is that when a smaller car enters a curve at high speed, it has a better chance of staying on the road. So since the heavier SUV has a greater chance of sliding off the road, it also has a greater chance of rolling over the embankment or whatever.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
quote: So how do I plug my truck into the nuclear power plant?
I think if you just hammered a rod of uranium onto the engine, that oughtta do it.
You can trust me. In junior high I made a big diorama that featured several different sorts of styrofoam atoms.
[ April 30, 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
quote: Bush + Energy Policy = My Head Exploding
It's A-SPLODE! Sheesh. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm curious as to who here has accurate percentages of how much 'renewable' energy Europe is using vs. how much America is using.
I don't have the book with me, but State of Fear by Michael Crichton makes the claim that America is at something like 6%, Denmark at 8%, and no other nation on Earth at a higher percentage than that, with most (if not all) of Europe at lower percentages, Lyrhawn. Now I know that there was some controvery here concerning how accurate and fair that novel treated the environmental movement, but I think it's pretty unlikely that he would have lied or been mistaken about such a cut-and-dried statistic.
Just because 'renewable' technologies are here does not mean they are remotely viable. Automobiles were available decades before they became anywhere near economic. Computers were around for nearly three decades before they became economically viable.
Hydroelectric power is available, but using it massively changes the environment of the surrounding area. That has problems of its own. Wind power slaughters lots of birds. Solar power would need insane amounts of space devoted to solar paneling to come close to replacing our current use of energy.
...and you fill up every week, Lyrhawn. You are apparently comfortable taking an environmental stance while contributing to its detriment.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Rakeesh, many (in particular France), while not using renewable energy sources, do use much more nuclear power plants, which are generally cleaner, on a macroscopic level. In France's case, I believe it is well over half of the electricity.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
France gets something like 70% of their energy from nuclear power.
And yes, I fill up every week, what's the alternative, I quit my job and school and live in a hole? Don't throw something that stupid in my face. At least I'm vocal about trying to change the system, that's better than buying into it and thinking it's alright.
And sorry but I don't believe Michael Crighton's figures. I know Germany and the UK have a higher percentage of their power from renewable energy. And they are making an active effort to increase that number to 20% in the next 10-15 years, while America looks for more oil to burn in the next 10-15 years.
I do think renewable energy is viable. And you can't call it "renwable" energy with scorn like that just because it is expensive, it's still renewable.
If the government would subsidize solar panels for people's homes, the national need for electricity and heating in the home could be reduced by millions of dollars, and thouands of kilowhat hours.
If the government would spend some real money on photovoltaic cell research, which is by the year making more advances, we'd already be where we probably won't be for another 20 years.
If the government would spend some real money on the renewable energy market we'd make back everything we put into it with exports. Sure oil is cost effective now, but in 20 years when we are dead last in the renewable energy market, everyone is going to wonder why we are the third world of renewable energy, why we have to import everything from Japan and Germany, why the homegrown market doesn't exist, and why we are losing out on billions.
And I'll just nod and say "I told you so."
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
Lyrhawn, I don't know where to begin with your post as it contains so many logic flaws. Obviously you are not an engineer/engineering student. You act as if throwing money at a technological problem will solve it. The federal government has been throwing millions and millions of dollars at NREL (which is only 1 1/2 miles from my house) and has nothing to show for it.
Instead of just wanting "the government" to throw money at something that gives you a warm fuzzy, put your money where your mouth is and *you* donate *your* money. Or better yet, become an engineer and solve the problem yourself.
Jesse, current mechanical engineering student
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bok,
Nuclear power is 'cleaner' only in the short-term. In the long-term, it is possibly much more dangerous and much more of a pollutant-we don't really know, though, because we haven't been using it that long.
---
quote:And yes, I fill up every week, what's the alternative, I quit my job and school and live in a hole? Don't throw something that stupid in my face. At least I'm vocal about trying to change the system, that's better than buying into it and thinking it's alright.
Oh, good for you! You're vocal about telling people that they're being disgracefully wasteful while you are as well. What's the alternative? Carpool, ride your bicycle to work, live closer to your school, get a job closer to your school. Don't call it stupid, Lyrhawn, because it isn't-you labelling it as such doesn't make it so, despite your holier-than-thou attitude. It can be done, at great inconvenience and difficulty.
But if you are so passionate about the environment, and so consistent in your villification of those who aren't, is your duty any less?
Of course you do not believe Crichton's figures, Lyrhawn. I wonder how many statistics you have ever believed that didn't already come from a Lyrhawn-approved source? If you know they have such a high percentage, then by all means, please do prove me wrong. Show me your statistics that contradict Crichton's claims concerning renewable energy sources.
Expense is a factor in determing how really 'renewable' an energy source is, isn't it? If it is so expensive that people can afford it for only one-quarter as long as they can existing energy-sources, it's not really renewable, not in the way it counts.
The government should subsidize solar-panel installation in every home in America? Are you serious? The cost would be enormous! And the money would have to come from somewhere. But I realize it's easy to maintain your moral superiority by saying that the government should do so-they have so much money, it's just reprehensible that they don't think like you, isn't it!
You can nod in twenty years all you like, Lyrhawn. But that's a long time from now, and people are very frequently wrong about what the world will be like that far from now.
Because no nation on Earth is going to get truly signifigant portions of their energy from clean, renewable sources until it is economically viable to do so-and once that happens, America is going to do so very quickly indeed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Lyrhawn, I don't know where to begin with your post as it contains so many logic flaws. Obviously you are not an engineer/engineering student. You act as if throwing money at a technological problem will solve it. The federal government has been throwing millions and millions of dollars at NREL (which is only 1 1/2 miles from my house) and has nothing to show for it.
Instead of just wanting "the government" to throw money at something that gives you a warm fuzzy, put your money where your mouth is and *you* donate *your* money. Or better yet, become an engineer and solve the problem yourself.
Jesse, current mechanical engineering student
Ok, I'm sorry but that's just too cute for words.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I know Germany and the UK have a higher percentage of their power from renewable energy. And they are making an active effort to increase that number to 20% in the next 10-15 years, while America looks for more oil to burn in the next 10-15 years.
You may be comparing different numbers - a quick look makes it appear as if that is 20% of electricity from renewable sources, not 20% of overall energy consumption. Very different numbers.
Without cites from either side, there's no way to resolve this discrepancy.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am back in town now, and I'm looking for some references for you, Lyrhawn and Dagonee. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2004/4/04.04.09.x.html#j is one, detailing the percentages of energy use in the world. This is not enough, of course, and especially since America uses the most energy of any one nation on Earth.
Apparently Germany is using approximately 3.1% renewable energy towards its total consumption. Other statistics are difficult for me to find cold, but I will get more tomorrow.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hm. Guess I was wrong on the European renewable energy stats. Sorry.
I could have sworn I saw different statistics somewhere else. I'll have to see what I can find.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Okay Eisen, I’ll give you your first point, I’m not an engineering student, and I don’t know the technical aspects of the deal.
But I know something about history. The airline industry, auto industry, oil industry, UPS and FedEx and several other big sectors of the government all had major financial help from the government to start up. So I’m not suggesting they simply throw money at the problem and hope it all works out. I’m saying the government should do what it used to do to stimulate a fledgling US business. They should invest funds in start up companies to get production moving, and then subsidize purchases until costs come down. That will make relatively revenue neutral, as the money that flows back into the economy from sales will offset the costs of investment.
One can hardly argue that doesn’t make any sense. I can clearly see the photovoltaic industry thriving in America, with middle class home owners able to pay for much of their summer and part of their winter energy bills (depending on where they live) through solar power, resulting in greatly reduced energy bills, and maybe even some money back from the energy they could sell back to the power companies. This means jobs for factory workers, for installation experts, for everyone who would work in the white collar jobs of a new industry, for repairmen, for customer service and support. Thousands, maybe millions of new jobs that aren’t going away anytime soon. And all this will help bolster the economy and pay for the government investment.
Now, is that a warm fuzzy, or is it viable? I think it’s viable, or at least a workable plan.
Rakeesh –
First of all, sorry for whatever I did to make you so vehemently despise me. I know when it comes to this subject in particular I can be…well, irrational, unreasonable, silly, etc etc, but I don’t intentionally mean to be a jackass. But I do genuinely apologize.
As for your points. I think that Hummers and people who buy SUVs when they don’t need them is extremely and very disgracefully wasteful. I can’t afford a hybrid, I can barely afford my car, which is a relatively fuel efficient Ford Focus. I live fifteen miles away from work and twenty away from school. Once in awhile in the summer IDO bike to work, but no one from work or school lives anywhere near my, it wouldn’t be very efficient to make someone drive 20 miles to me (or me to them) and then another 15 to work or whatever. Moving closer to school or changing jobs, I don’t know anything about you, but if you had barely enough money to pay your bills, not including rent, how would you propose to move yourself anywhere that involves paying rent? Especially when moving would mean taking a lower paying job? It’s not a matter of convenience, it’s a matter of finances.
Yes I understand that finances can get in people’s way, it gets in my way, I’m not ignorant of that fact. The part that annoys me is that many, I’d say probably the majority, of America doesn’t really even seem to try. I carpool when I can, when I go places, I recycle, I try to be informed and vocal about what things are good for the environment, and I do what I can use less gasoline myself. When I’m older I do plan to buy a Hybrid, it’s one of the first things I plan to do when I get a real job.
My duty isn’t any less than anyone else’s, but my ability to really effect change is. I’ll see what I can do to get contradictory figures, and if I can’t, I’ll admit I was wrong. And expense doesn’t make a renewable energy less renewable, it makes it more expensive, and perhaps at times less than attractive for it’s expense. But renewability has nothing to do with cost.
I honestly think you are going way out of your way to try and paint my motives in a negative light. I’m not looking down on you or anyone else with some sort of scorn or condescension. I am however angry at people who complain about gas prices but don’t try to fix their problem, who complain about their energy bills but don’t care about plans to fix them. My problem is with people who want a problem to go away, but don’t think they should have to do anything to fix it. If you are one of those people, my problem is with you. If you aren’t, then it isn’t.
As I said above, I don’t think subsidizing solar panels on homes would be that big a deal, no. It’s an investment. If Bush can spend 2 Billion dollars on “clean coal” technology, he can spend 2 Billion dollars on solar panel installation in America. Besides, all the money spent on subsidizing construction will flow right back into government’s coffers at a later date. It’s an investment, not a giveaway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:The airline industry, auto industry, oil industry, UPS and FedEx and several other big sectors of the government all had major financial help from the government to start up.
I don't recall ever learning in any history class that this is accurate-but all of those industries have had substantial government support at some point since their inception, in varying degrees. I personally believe subsidizing is a good thing, but that there is a point of diminishing returns. Somewhere along the subsidies line, you're going to have to spend massively larger amounts of money in order to get a proportionally smaller return.
quote:I know when it comes to this subject in particular I can be…well, irrational, unreasonable, silly, etc etc, but I don’t intentionally mean to be a jackass. But I do genuinely apologize.
I don't despise you, and I don't think you're being a jackass, just very passionate about an issue that matters a great deal to you. What I do despise, though, is the way passion on this and other issues quickly leads to people thinking that those who disagree are morally inferior and worthy of contempt. To use a purely political example, I hate it when Rush does it, I hate it when Michael Moore does it. And they both do it regularly.
quote:I think that Hummers and people who buy SUVs when they don’t need them is extremely and very disgracefully wasteful.
I personally would never buy a Hummer, and I cannot see myself buying an SUV for many years if ever. But just to point something out: that ostentatious spender who buys the Hummer, how many people were involved in its manufacture? That flagrantly rich guy has put food on a lot of tables. And ask yourself if you're being fair about who 'needs' an SUV or who doesn't-and then ask yourself at what point it became acceptable for us to decide what other people 'need'?
It's 'What Would Jesus Drive', man.
quote:Moving closer to school or changing jobs, I don’t know anything about you, but if you had barely enough money to pay your bills, not including rent, how would you propose to move yourself anywhere that involves paying rent? Especially when moving would mean taking a lower paying job? It’s not a matter of convenience, it’s a matter of finances.
Then why didn't you consider these factors when you enrolled in that college, took those jobs, and lived in your current place? This is America, after all-there are other jobs, other colleges, other apartments. Sure, it's extremely difficult to impossible to do these things now-you're locked in for the duration, so to speak. But what about before? Is your passion concerning the environment a newfound ideology, or did it exist years ago when you started college? If so, why didn't you take into account these considerations then? It can be done.
This is the hazard you run into when you start making moral judgements of other people concerning the environment. You live in America. The vast, overwhelming majority of us-including those concerned about the environment-are awesomely wasteful, we spend many times the amount of energy as do people in the rest of the First World, and it's off the charts compared to the much less fortunate in the Third World. We do it without even considering it, really. You end up making moral judgements of people not because they are doing much differently than you are, but because they don't really feel as bad about doing it as you do.
quote:Yes I understand that finances can get in people’s way, it gets in my way, I’m not ignorant of that fact. The part that annoys me is that many, I’d say probably the majority, of America doesn’t really even seem to try. I carpool when I can, when I go places, I recycle, I try to be informed and vocal about what things are good for the environment, and I do what I can use less gasoline myself. When I’m older I do plan to buy a Hybrid, it’s one of the first things I plan to do when I get a real job.
Who are you to critize other people you've never met for their decisions that impact the environment? Especially when it appears that for the time being, you've reached your own status quo and have given up attempting to improve your environmental impact, except for castigating those who do not agree with you?
Being informed and vocal about the environment doesn't mean squat. It accomplishes nothing on its own. Examples are what persuade people to make changes in their lives. I remember watching on TV in school about a family in Oregon, I think, many years ago, that was so concious of their waste that they only ended up throwing away a couple of bags of trash each year. That was to me a very impressive example, and I have since then tried to produce less waste myself. That's just one of many possible examples concerning the environment.
Those people didn't lecture me about how awfully wasteful I was, and then produce maybe 10% less trash than I do-because let me tell you, these days, everyone tries to use less gasoline-and then describe how bad they feel about it. They had a sufficiently radical lifestyle that their presumable feeling of superiority on the issue was quite merited-they were walking the walk.
quote:And expense doesn’t make a renewable energy less renewable, it makes it more expensive, and perhaps at times less than attractive for it’s expense. But renewability has nothing to do with cost.
Rubbish. In practical terms-and those are the terms that matter-expense matters a great deal. There is a reason the entire planet uses much more coal, oil, and natural gas for its energy needs over cleaner and more renewable sources-it's much, much, much, much cheaper! No one on the planet anymore pretends that doing so is good for the environment, or insists that such things have a positive impact on us or our descendants-no one serious anyway.
quote:I honestly think you are going way out of your way to try and paint my motives in a negative light. I’m not looking down on you or anyone else with some sort of scorn or condescension.
On the contrary, I think most of your posts on this issue have contained moral judgements about those who disagree with you. In the beginning of the thread, the soldier who didn't ask the question you thought he should've-the implication was that he was a chump.
Those who do not agree with you must obviously be so stupid that they think you're a hippy.
Pointing out that your lifestyle is not in line with your rhetoric is stupid.
You'll show me and those who don't think like you do in twenty years. Can't wait to say, "Toldja so!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and for the record: I do not think the Bush Administration's stance on the environment or on fossil-fuel companies is a good one. It is dismissive and smug on the first, and much too bankrolled by the second.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Then why didn't you consider these factors when you enrolled in that college, took those jobs, and lived in your current place?
Okay, I live with my mother. I don't know how you'd expect me to get around that. Make her move? I don't know how I could force her to move out of this house she has lived in for 30 years, but I suppose I could have guilted her into it, yeah. Second, there is exactly one college closer than Oakland University to me, it's Oakland Community College, which doesn't offer a teaching program. My job, alright, I'll give you that, I suppose I could have gotten a job closer to where I live, but nothing close by pays very much.
Regardless, I don't think you're giving me much credit there. Low income families don't have many options when it comes to these kinds of things, as you yourself may or may not know.
quote: And ask yourself if you're being fair about who 'needs' an SUV or who doesn't-and then ask yourself at what point it became acceptable for us to decide what other people 'need'?
I never posted any of my feelings on who does and doesn't need an SUV, so I don't get how you can question me on that. I'd define someone who needs an SUV as a person who does construction work, has a moderate to large sized family, has a handicapped person in the family, etc with things similar to that. That is how I define need. Someone who has one because they think it looks nice, but never needs it for its capabilities, that is who I was referring to when I said disgraceful.
Also, according to you, I should shut up and not even try. I guess I can't change the world, and maybe there isn't a point in trying, but I still will. I don't understand why you personally are taking so much offense to what I'm saying. The difference between me and people like Rush and Moore is that they genuinely hate the people they are castigating. I don't hate many people, but I certainly have the right to be angry at them. And I certainly have the right to criticize anyone I want who I believe is screwing up my environment, it's mine, it's yours, it's everyone's. And when the wastefulness of others infringes on my right to a clean environment, I have every right in the world to criticize and castigate anyone who is doing the infringing.
I still disagree with you about renewability. The reason it is called renewable is because it never runs out, it has nothing to do with cost. Fossil Fuels are called that because of they are, not because of cheap they are. If oil skyrocketed to 200 dollars a barrel would it stop being a fossil fuel? You're talking about the FEASIBILITY of renewable energy, not the definition.
I understand what you are saying, my lifestyle doesn't match what I preach 100%. So I should either change my lifestyle, which I can't, or shut up. Well, sorry, but I'm not going to shut up. People who can change their lifestyle might need to hear some of what I have to say. When I'm older, and when I am able to, I'll live my life perfectly in sync with what I preach. Until then I'll just have to put up with people who try and shut me down.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)