Dems - Sellouts or Just dumb?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you be so kind as to contrast why this stuff proposed by the Democrats, that apparently you feel is worthless, is better than what the Republicans did in Congress? For something to be worse than worthless it has to do damage. I'm fairly certain why you feel what the Republicans wanted to do and did (if anything) is damaging but I think it's worth contrasting the two parties energy policies. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bush administration cut CAFE standards, created loopholes for American car companies to bypass what standards were in place. Simply adding a $10 rubber hose that is compatible with ethanol allows you to be exempt from efficiency standards regardless of whether the vehicle uses biofuels or not. A lot of people drive E85 ready cars and don't know it.

The Bush administration cut funding in a lot of meaningful areas. Basically all the techs that the scientists said were helpful were cut by bush. They gave oil companies over 11 billion in subsidies each year. They really catered to ADM and special interests in the ethanol industry. Iogen is owned by shell btw. The list goes on. They cooked the books big time to include nuclear subsidies and countless other things as part of the "climate energy research" program. Lets just say if I was going to suppress alternative energy the republican plan was flawless. I mean, as far as scams go, it was simply brilliant.

The democrats are doing lots of good. They are stripping away the subsidies given to oil companies, they are talking about ramping up meaningful research, investing in electrified rail, increasing CAFE standards, etc. The Senate's plan isn't half bad and I really can't complain too much. It's just littered with junk. Despite this I think it will be effective. The Dem House's plan is a joke.

Overall the the Senate's plan is a gigantor improvement. The House's plan is simply a switch from destructive to incompetent.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, but every minute of every day enough energy hits the planet to provide all the power we need. Making energy isn't that big of a deal. It's making energy when you need it, where you want it, that is the biggest challenge. You can only scale up renewables to about 20% because they are erratic.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're advocating solar photovoltaic energy, essentially.



[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily photovoltaic as there are lots of solar techs out there. But if any single one of these techs can be solved:

-universal geothermal
-Solar collection
-ocean thermal energy conversion
-deep sea wind & sky power

Then we will have virtually limitless energy. Everyone on this planet will be bathed in energy.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised, I thought that HHO gas was a decent way of storing the solar energy. I think you sent a link to something of that effect? (I'm probably wrong)

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing I remember about HHO is the car that's *assisted* by it. It just makes normal gasoline burn more efficiently. Not a good storage device but a worthy short-term tech.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
If the vast majority of voters thought that you could power the economy with pink elephant poop, wouldn't you make PEP research anumber one priority if you wanted to get elected?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will die before I forget this analogy. Very well said.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm too lazy to read the links -- are they deregulating wind and solar (i.e. allowing individuals to put up a windmill or solar cell and sell the power back to the grid)? Getting individuals involved in power production would be HUGE.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what ways are windmills/solarcells regulated? Cant you just buy the stuff and slap it on your roof?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
Now anyone that knows anything about native biofuels realizes that it's simply not scalable. And corn based ethanol doesn't even get positive return unless you count the calories created by the 'animal feed' by product. Animal feed that requires the injection of antibiotics because it destroys the cows livers. Scientists say the energy return is so dismal they call it "recycled coal". When McCain ran against Bush he lost in key states because of the farmers vote. So I can understand why republicans would bend to the wills of ADM and similar organizations. However, I don't understand why dems do this with corn ethanol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wacki,
Agree about corn, it's nearly impossible to find a scientific study to applaud corn-based ethanol as a cost-effective solution. I recently attended a World Agricultural Forum meeting in DC for a business proposal, and I came across a British company growing Jatropha in Africa, for shipment to Europe. The numbers so far were very cost-effective and profitable, admitedly compared to European diesel prices. What about something similar, a non-native biofuel producer for the US? Palm/jatropha/whatever high yield crop can be grown cheaply.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets just say if I was going to suppress alternative energy the republican plan was flawless. I mean, as far as scams go, it was simply brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like you probably voted Repub based on your posts in general, so I appreciate your candor. This is actually something that I am quite interested in. Hopefully if the Dems are really intersted in alternative energy that the discussion will force the real science come to the forefront. Very intersting post.

[vulturesrow]

I think it would be awesome if we could somehow harness the sunshine that politicians blow up our asses on a daily basis. Then we'd be cooking with Schlitz!

[Annies_Beaver]

Brazil has achieved energy independence through the use of ethanol:

[ QUOTE ]
A three-decade-long alternative energy campaign has outfitted Brazilian filling stations with fuel pumps that offer pure ethanol, a blend of gasoline and 20% ethanol called gasohol, or even natural gas. This year, Brazil will achieve energy independence — a goal the United States has been chasing without success since the energy crises of the 1970s.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In 2005, the U.S. produced 3.9 billion gallons of fuel ethanol and imported 109 million gallons, almost all from Brazil. By expanding purchases of Brazilian ethanol, the USA could curb what President Bush has labeled its oil addiction. But the U.S. imposes a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff to discourage imports and protect domestic farmers. American ethanol is produced from corn, which costs more and produces less energy per unit of input than sugar cane.



[/ QUOTE ]

If President Bush would actually invest in alternative energies instead of paying lip service to the idea while subsidizing oil companies and other special interests behind America's collective back, I'm sure America could achieve energy independence also.

Bush is such a POS. He talks tough on terrorism, but his main goal is to reward as many special interests as possible in the short term at the expense of America's long-term health and security. Disgusting.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
Brazil has achieved energy independence through the use of ethanol:

[ QUOTE ]
A three-decade-long alternative energy campaign has outfitted Brazilian filling stations with fuel pumps that offer pure ethanol, a blend of gasoline and 20% ethanol called gasohol, or even natural gas. This year, Brazil will achieve energy independence — a goal the United States has been chasing without success since the energy crises of the 1970s.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In 2005, the U.S. produced 3.9 billion gallons of fuel ethanol and imported 109 million gallons, almost all from Brazil. By expanding purchases of Brazilian ethanol, the USA could curb what President Bush has labeled its oil addiction. But the U.S. imposes a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff to discourage imports and protect domestic farmers. American ethanol is produced from corn, which costs more and produces less energy per unit of input than sugar cane.



[/ QUOTE ]

If President Bush would actually invest in alternative energies instead of paying lip service to the idea while subsidizing oil companies and other special interests behind America's collective back, I'm sure America could achieve energy independence also.

Bush is such a POS. He talks tough on terrorism, but his main goal is to reward as many special interests as possible in the short term at the expense of America's long-term health and security. Disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree about Bush. He was put in a situation where he could have literally done ANYTHING he wanted to make America better/safer. He could have been in the history books with Abraham Lincoln and the rest. And I hate Bush and pretty much always have been apatetic at best about him.

[Propertarian]

Do you know anything about the sanity of similar policies in other countries?