Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

Kerry Offers 10-Year Plan for U.S. Energy Independence

Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion/Politics

Kerry Offers 10-Year Plan for U.S. Energy Independence

Old 08-06-04, 04:41 PM
  #51  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,767
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by Tsar Chasm
Your alternative?
I am quite a radical in terms of my beliefs in areas' uses of resources. I believe that if an area has resources it can use such as water or sources of energy it has the obligation to develop its own before it goes out looking to use other areas' resources. If you don't want to do that you regulate population so you don't have to.

For example, I can find no excuse for having offshore oil but closing that off for aesthetic reasons and then requiring that we import oil from other countries.
Old 08-06-04, 04:44 PM
  #52  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: PDX Metro
Posts: 8,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by X
I am quite a radical in terms of my beliefs in areas' uses of resources. I believe that if an area has resources it can use such as water or sources of energy it has the obligation to develop its own before it goes out looking to use other areas' resources. If you don't want to do that you regulate population so you don't have to.

For example, I can find no excuse for having offshore oil but closing that off for aesthetic reasons and then requiring that we import oil from other countries.
How about the entirety of Southern California's dependence on water from other sources?
Old 08-06-04, 04:46 PM
  #53  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Should we put a nuclear power plant in midtown Manhattan?
Old 08-06-04, 04:47 PM
  #54  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,767
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by Tsar Chasm
How about the entirety of Southern California's dependence on water from other sources?
Now we're talking about after the fact and repairing what has already occurred.

I believe Southern California has an obligation to develop its natural resources (oil) and provide those to the area from which they got their water. Not to mention an obligation to use as little water as possible. Or they could use their self-developed power to desalinate.
Old 08-06-04, 04:54 PM
  #55  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,699
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by X
I am quite a radical in terms of my beliefs in areas' uses of resources. I believe that if an area has resources it can use such as water or sources of energy it has the obligation to develop its own before it goes out looking to use other areas' resources. If you don't want to do that you regulate population so you don't have to.

For example, I can find no excuse for having offshore oil but closing that off for aesthetic reasons and then requiring that we import oil from other countries.
I agree with you to a point, but you shouldn't ignore the concept of comparative advantage. If everybody wants a summer home on Cape Cod and nobody wants a summer home in Iowa, it's stupid to put half the windmills on Cape Cod and half the summer homes in Iowa -- put all the summer homes in Cape Cod and let them use the profits from the sale of summer homes to buy wind power from Iowa.
Old 08-06-04, 04:55 PM
  #56  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Tsar Chasm
X, of course the resort people of Massachusetts are upset, that's not the place to put a wind farm.

How about anywhere in the vast and wideopen plains?
and desecrate the wilderness? we might as well as drill in ANWR.
Old 08-06-04, 04:57 PM
  #57  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by JasonF
I agree with you to a point, but you shouldn't ignore the concept of comparative advantage. If everybody wants a summer home on Cape Cod and nobody wants a summer home in Iowa, it's stupid to put half the windmills on Cape Cod and half the summer homes in Iowa -- put all the summer homes in Cape Cod and let them use the profits from the sale of summer homes to buy wind power from Iowa.
Well everyone in Alaska wants to drill in ANWR, but almost no one on the east and west coasts wants to do it. Why should they get to decide what happens on someone else's barren wilderness?
Old 08-06-04, 04:59 PM
  #58  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,767
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by JasonF
I agree with you to a point, but you shouldn't ignore the concept of comparative advantage. If everybody wants a summer home on Cape Cod and nobody wants a summer home in Iowa, it's stupid to put half the windmills on Cape Cod and half the summer homes in Iowa -- put all the summer homes in Cape Cod and let them use the profits from the sale of summer homes to buy wind power from Iowa.
Or build a nuclear plant near Cape Cod. Or put up with the bare sight of windmills and feel satisfied that you're part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

I agree there have to be some tradeoffs, but we are so totally far away from this concept I think it's one that we should strive toward. It's all greed and NIMBY right now and I don't think it can last.
Old 08-06-04, 05:07 PM
  #59  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 6,733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by X
An excellent point.

Maybe he'll learn about that energy source after the French become our friends.

Sweden has an equally impressive nuclear program. I think they also generate something like 80% of their electricity with nuclear power.
Old 08-06-04, 05:08 PM
  #60  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,767
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by al_bundy
Well everyone in Alaska wants to drill in ANWR, but almost no one on the east and west coasts wants to do it. Why should they get to decide what happens on someone else's barren wilderness?
That's true. I still laugh at the SUVs I see driving around with "No War for Oil" bumper stickers.

I think we at least have to attempt to provide our own power before going outside our borders.
Old 08-06-04, 05:08 PM
  #61  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: PDX Metro
Posts: 8,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by al_bundy
Well everyone in Alaska wants to drill in ANWR, but almost no one on the east and west coasts wants to do it. Why should they get to decide what happens on someone else's barren wilderness?
For the exact same reason that we should not hand the keys to our national forests to the governors to sell off as they see fit.

NATIONAL not ALASKAN. It is a national wildlife refuge.

Of course the alaskans want to drill there. They live in Alaska. There are no good jobs in Alaska. Rather than move from Alaska to where the jobs are, they'd rather rape the earth.

Same thing in Idaho. If they run into job problems (sure, this would never happen in a Bush presidency) they can always open up national forest land and clear cut to their hearts content.
Old 08-06-04, 05:10 PM
  #62  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: PDX Metro
Posts: 8,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by X
Or build a nuclear plant near Cape Cod. Or put up with the bare sight of windmills and feel satisfied that you're part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

I agree there have to be some tradeoffs, but we are so totally far away from this concept I think it's one that we should strive toward. It's all greed and NIMBY right now and I don't think it can last.
Why stop there? How about local agriculture? How about local finished goods? Have you no concept of trade?
Old 08-06-04, 05:12 PM
  #63  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,767
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
I think if a national wildlife refuge is to be designated and all its resources are put off-limits then the people advocating that designation should have to decide beforehand what national area is going to be used to make up those resources. And then let the people decide instead of making those designations political acts.
Old 08-06-04, 05:13 PM
  #64  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,767
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by Tsar Chasm
Why stop there? How about local agriculture? How about local finished goods? Have you no concept of trade?
There are not food shortages and we are not having to go outside our national boundaries to protect our food supplies.
Old 08-06-04, 05:16 PM
  #65  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 6,733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by CRM114
Should we put a nuclear power plant in midtown Manhattan?
Land is too expensive in Manhattan for a nuclear power plant to be prifitable. You have to build it someplace where nobody really wants to live like upstate NY. Or convert Shorham to nuclear
Old 08-06-04, 05:18 PM
  #66  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Tsar Chasm
For the exact same reason that we should not hand the keys to our national forests to the governors to sell off as they see fit.

NATIONAL not ALASKAN. It is a national wildlife refuge.

Of course the alaskans want to drill there. They live in Alaska. There are no good jobs in Alaska. Rather than move from Alaska to where the jobs are, they'd rather rape the earth.

Same thing in Idaho. If they run into job problems (sure, this would never happen in a Bush presidency) they can always open up national forest land and clear cut to their hearts content.
and cape cod is a great place for a wind farm, except all the nimby's are trying to stop it. It's in the national interest to put it there to reduce our reliance on oil, so it needs to be built.
Old 08-06-04, 05:19 PM
  #67  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: PDX Metro
Posts: 8,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by X
There are not food shortages and we are not having to go outside our national boundaries to protect our food supplies.
So because we now have an energy shortage, all localities are responsible for getting and maintaining their own power regardless of ability or resources?

So if we do decide to drill in the ANWR should that oil stay in Alaska? If Cape Cod wants oil, shouldn't they start drilling locally?

You have no problem with opening up drilling in Alaska but I can't put some windmills in Wyoming? Sounds contradictory to me.
Old 08-06-04, 05:23 PM
  #68  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Tsar Chasm
So because we now have an energy shortage, all localities are responsible for getting and maintaining their own power regardless of ability or resources?

So if we do decide to drill in the ANWR should that oil stay in Alaska? If Cape Cod wants oil, shouldn't they start drilling locally?

You have no problem with opening up drilling in Alaska but I can't put some windmills in Wyoming? Sounds contradictory to me.
wyoming is producing natural gas as fast as it comes out of the ground. It seems the greenies on the coasts want to regulate the environment in other states and prevent people from using it to keep it a "pristine wilderness" and meanwhile they have no qualms about squashing alternative power projects in their backyards simply because it will threaten their property values.
Old 08-06-04, 05:24 PM
  #69  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,767
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by Tsar Chasm
So because we now have an energy shortage, all localities are responsible for getting and maintaining their own power regardless of ability or resources?

So if we do decide to drill in the ANWR should that oil stay in Alaska? If Cape Cod wants oil, shouldn't they start drilling locally?

You have no problem with opening up drilling in Alaska but I can't put some windmills in Wyoming? Sounds contradictory to me.
I believe that basic resources should come from local sources if possible first. If that's not possible they should come from national sources, but the locale receiving them is obligated to provide a resource they have (but just might not want to exploit) if possible. NIMBY will be way, way down on the list of reasons not to develop local resources.

If you don't like that but also don't like what is going on in the world right now please feel free to propose your plan. If you want to continue to protect and be at the mercy of oil supplies in the Middle East and elsewhere you don't need to bother presenting a plan.
Old 08-06-04, 05:25 PM
  #70  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any plan that does not call for an agressive exploration and drilling program for oil and natural gas is not a realistic energy plan. That means reducing the time from site acquisition to selling the first barrel of oil from the well head to 6 months - not the 36+ months it takes today.

Any plan that calls for energy independence in 10 years is a pie-in-the-sky, dreamworld, not to be be taken seriously plan. There is some evidence that this country can not achieve energy independence. If it is an obtainable goal, we certainly can't do it in 10 years - maybe 25. Without an agressive nuclear program - not even 25.

Folks - many months this country is importing 60% of its petroleum. When the oil shortage and gas lines of the 70s brought havoc to this country, we were importing about 1/3 of our petroleum needs. Just think of the devastation to our economy, our way of life, that would cause today.

No, no, let's not do anything to upset the tree huggers, however.

Their plan is promulgated by Sen. Barbara Boxer - you can't pursue any energy source that would impact the environment. Newsflash for the tree huggers & Ms. Boxer - any energy plan is going to impact the environment. The goal should be to have as little impact as possible, and weigh that against the energy that you can obtain from that little impact as possible.
Old 08-06-04, 05:25 PM
  #71  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by CRM114
Some President has to have the balls to try mandates. Private enterprise will NEVER find alternatives. If there were viable alternatives and they were squashed by big oil and regulations, we'd be using them today. Even if we can ween ourselves a bit from oil, its a good thing.
How about a mandate to wean ourselves from foreign coal?

Mandates? Like mandating 1.7 million acres of land in southwest Utah as the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument?

This, coincidentally is one of three places in the world that has a mineable amount of low-sulfur, low-ash coal.

The other two? Columbia, which lacks the infrastructure to support mining and delivering.

And Indonesia. The very same Indonesia in which the Riady family resides. The same ones that donated lots and lots of money to the democrats and own lots of Indonesian coal mines. But it's all about private enterprise, right? Government is to be our savior??

Private enterprise- the likes of which has enabled some people, like Wilson Greatbatch- to bankroll helium-3 research- as an energy source. I didn't see anything on Kerry's list for that either. And it'll get a helluva lot more out of it than windmills or some idiotic ethanol-based gasoline oxygenate.

Last edited by PrivateJoker; 08-06-04 at 05:30 PM.
Old 08-06-04, 05:29 PM
  #72  
DVD Talk Legend
 
chess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 20,804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK fellas...now that you've discussed the truly visionary long term plan of "drilling for more", what say we talk about the merits of investing in something else. Have we no faith at all in ingenuity?

To me, this is one of those things that's been obvious for 50 years, but no president to date has been willing to tackle. To me, this shows vision on Kerry's part that is on par with the other JFK's moonshot in the 60s...assuming that he's actually willing to use political capital on it, which is admittedly a big assumption.
Old 08-06-04, 05:38 PM
  #73  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by chess
OK fellas...now that you've discussed the truly visionary long term plan of "drilling for more", what say we talk about the merits of investing in something else. Have we no faith at all in ingenuity?

To me, this is one of those things that's been obvious for 50 years, but no president to date has been willing to tackle. To me, this shows vision on Kerry's part that is on par with the other JFK's moonshot in the 60s...assuming that he's actually willing to use political capital on it, which is admittedly a big assumption.
kerry is full of BS. if he was for alternative energy he would be pushing the cape cod wind farm. but since his friends are against it, he is against it. He can write up all the pie in the sky dreams he wants, but CEO's of major corporations that are actually selling alternative energy solutions have already had this goal for a while. In fact it will be achieved if kerry didn't do anything.
Old 08-06-04, 06:27 PM
  #74  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,061
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by classicman2
We need a realistic plan - a plan that recognizes the fact that this country, for the foreseeable future is going to be primarily dependent upon fossil fuels for its energy needs. I see nothing in the Kerry plan that addresses this fact.
Thank you. You are exactly right. In 2000, (latest figures I can find readily) we were using about 128 billion gallons of gasoline and 57 billion gallons of diesel (and home heating oil, the product is the same except for taxes, and these figures don't separate by use, only product).

Ethanol: We have been making 2-2.5 billion gallons of ethanol per year, used in mixtures up to 10% with gasoline as octane booster and 7% as oxygenate. Bush pushed a plan to raise ethanol production to 5 billion gallons, which was immediately denounced as evil by the greenies, but is embraced when Kerry says it.

Whatever the total demand for oxygenate, ethanol is better than MTBE, and as an octane booster it is cheaper and less toxic than other additives. A total of 8% of all gasoline, or 10 billion gallons would probably meet all of both requirements, and be a good short term goal, although honestly, I don't know if we can grow enough corn, this is a huge expansion of corn production. The energy content of ethanol is only about 2/3 gasoline, so replacing gasoline would require 192 billion gallons; we can't grow that. Kerry's idea of 20% energy usage would require 38 billion gallons to replace 20% of gasoline energy. That requires 17x more corn than we grow (for ethanol) today. Current corn production for ethanol roughly matches that for all human and animal consumption including corn syrup, margarine, etc, as well as "obvious" corn. I think Kerry's goal is naive.

Biodiesel: Germany makes quite a lot. Only about 20 million (note the "m") gallons is used in US per year (2001) while capacity is 250 million gallons. Biodiesel is an excellent additive. Low sulfur diesel fuel (needed for clean air) has a lubricity problem and causes premature wear of injectors and fuel pumps. As little as 2% biodiesel as an additive solves that. Biodiesel can be used up to a 20% mixture in any engine without adjustment. Biodiesel doesn't have nearly the farm lobby support that ethanol does, so no one pushes it. Up to 2% of diesel usage, (1.2 billion gallons) it would be an awfully good idea, just so no one whines about low sulfur diesel. If we can grow enough soy or canola (the two best oil seed crops for US climate) more would be better, but I doubt we can. Kerry's 20% and the slightly lower energy content would require 17 billion gallons of biodiesel. (Germany produces about 2 billion today)

For decades, our farmers have grown too much, and farm land has been converted to residential. However, they can't grow this much, and if we tried, we'd be bulldozing neighborhoods and turning them into farms.
Old 08-06-04, 06:34 PM
  #75  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
not sure if anyone mentioned it but 2020 is more than 10 years away

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.