Pelosi and Reid cut off alternative energy

[ZenFountain]

Just when you thought congress could not possibly be more inept:

Quote:

As Adam Browning of Vote Solar put it "Thursday morning, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi decided to drop the renewable energy standard out of the energy bill and drop the tax title. No tax title means no extension of the investment tax credit for solar, and no extention of the production tax credit for wind. Let's see...nothing for solar, plus nothing for wind, hmmm, add no renewable energy standard, carry the zero...yep, that adds up to precisely nothing for renewable energy.

Got that? Congressional leadership is moving an energy bill with nothing in it for renewable energy. Dropping the biggest pro-solar provision this country has ever seen, just when the industry is gaining momentum and making an impact. Could there be any other motive for this last minute change in policy?

Full Article

First, it must be said this is an early report from Huffington so who knows if there are factual errors or bias. Presuming it's true though, just what the hell is this congress doing? Whether you are a believer or skeptic of man made climate change, conservative or liberal, I thought we all agreed alternative energy is a national priority. With skyrocketing oil prices and reliance on imports greater than ever, how could they possibly justify this? Have Reid and Pelosi sold America out to the oil lobby once again?

I know wind and solar are only good for so much, but still it doesn't hurt to have those incentives there to expand their use. Even 5% alternative energy would take a lot of pressure off the energy market at this point in time while we wait for larger and long term programs like nuclear to take off. This is just plain stupid any way you slice it.

[corplinx]

They spent the money on some island off palm beach in their their last "nothing but pork" water bill.

[ZenFountain]

I guess if flood control, water supply and navigation projects are now consider pork then it was all pork, but that's an entirely different issue.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ZenFountain

I guess if flood control, water supply and navigation projects are now consider pork then it was all pork, but that's an entirely different issue.

Perhaps we can develop a method to extract power from pork?

Oh wait, that's already been done. It's called "politics". An inefficient and extremely dirty form of energy, but it seems effective enough for those who use it.

[Loss Leader]

Politics is set up to favor those whom it already favors. We have depression-era corn subsidies that make no sense. We have CAFE standards that haven't changed in 30 years. We have agricultural rules that favor inefficient and dangerous slaughterhouses.

Those who have received the help of the government grow rich and are able to support the government so they receive the grateful help of the government.

[Schneibster]

What are these idiots DOING???!!? First Mukasey, now this? Next they'll be voting more money for Iraq, or supporting some stupid statement about Iran's army so Shrub can embroil us in a worse ****up than we're already in in Iraq.

Oh, yeah, right...

[dahduh]

I wonder how many btu's there are in a senator.

[WildCat]

If those forms of energy require subsidies then they're not really viable in the first place, are they? Now an argument could be made that these types of energy should be encouraged, but they shouldn't IMHO, since we already have a proven green technology that can handle all of our electricity needs with a much smaller footprint and more reliability than wind or solar - nuclear!

It's time to stop the BS and start building nuke plants again, and there are encouraging signs that the next big nuke plant building boom is about to happen.

[ZenFountain]

WildCat, you know I agree with you on nuclear power but you have to look at it from a practical standpoint. Even if nuclear power was put on top priority it would take decades to build up the kind of nuclear infrastructure we need using new reactor types plus the infrastructure needed for fuel processing and waste disposal. Let's also be honest about the direct subsidies nuclear power has received over the years.

Solar and wind are non-controversial and can be put into operation much more quickly. In some areas they will be far more cost efficient than transmitting power from a nuclear plant thousands of miles away anyway. You have to look at this as a whole picture rather than just saying one form of energy is going to cover everything. If we put up wind farms and solar panels now and take them down twenty years from now, they will have paid for themselves regardless of what's going on with nuclear or whatever else. It's win-win and only needs a gentle nudge in the form of tax breaks to be viable right now.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by WildCat

If those forms of energy require subsidies then they're not really viable in the first place, are they?

Railroads required subsidies. So did oil. Subsidies are what help protect a nascent industry as it develops into a viable one. A subsidy doesn't mean that a particular program or technology is a bad idea; it just means that it isn't ready to compete in the free market yet.

When it is ready, the aim is that it will be cheaper and more efficient than the technologies it replaces.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by ZenFountain

WildCat, you know I agree with you on nuclear power but you have to look at it from a practical standpoint. Even if nuclear power was put on top priority it would take decades to build up the kind of nuclear infrastructure we need using new reactor types plus the infrastructure needed for fuel processing and waste disposal.

And it would also take decades to build up enough solar and wind power to replace the coal and gas electric plants we have now. And it requires an enormous footprint! Do you know how many acres of wind and solar farms it would take to replace our non-nuke and non-hydro energy plants?

Quote:

Let's also be honest about the direct subsidies nuclear power has received over the years.

I'm not against subsidies on the face, but I want subsidies going to the best option, not the also-rans.

Quote:

Solar and wind are non-controversial and can be put into operation much more quickly.

Just so long as they aren't built where anyone has to look at them... hardly non-controversial.

Quote:

In some areas they will be far more cost efficient than transmitting power from a nuclear plant thousands of miles away anyway. You have to look at this as a whole picture rather than just saying one form of energy is going to cover everything. If we put up wind farms and solar panels now and take them down twenty years from now, they will have paid for themselves regardless of what's going on with nuclear or whatever else. It's win-win and only needs a gentle nudge in the form of tax breaks to be viable right now.

Wind and solar are costly relative to the energy they produce, nuclear is cheap. No reason you'd have to transmit from thousands of miles away either.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Railroads required subsidies. So did oil. Subsidies are what help protect a nascent industry as it develops into a viable one. A subsidy doesn't mean that a particular program or technology is a bad idea; it just means that it isn't ready to compete in the free market yet.

Like I said above. I'm not against subsidies per se, just ones that encourage the second or third best options.

Quote:

When it is ready, the aim is that it will be cheaper and more efficient than the technologies it replaces.

And with current technology that isn't wind or solar.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by WildCat

And with current technology that isn't wind or solar.

Right. That's why we need the subsidies - so that wind and solar technology can be developed to the point where they can compete against just plain burning the earth.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Right. That's why we need the subsidies - so that wind and solar technology can be developed to the point where they can compete against just plain burning the earth.

How many acres of wind and solar power would be necessary to replace the capacity of fossil fuel plants we have today?

[TShaitanaku]

Originally Posted by WildCat

If those forms of energy require subsidies then they're not really viable in the first place, are they?

And how much in subsidies have been given to oil, coal, gas and nuclear over the last 50 years?

[geni]

Originally Posted by WildCat

If those forms of energy require subsidies then they're not really viable in the first place, are they? Now an argument could be made that these types of energy should be encouraged, but they shouldn't IMHO, since we already have a proven green technology that can handle all of our electricity needs with a much smaller footprint and more reliability than wind or solar - nuclear!

Even lloyds won't insure it so not a viable free market option.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How many acres of wind and solar power would be necessary to replace the capacity of fossil fuel plants we have today?

Now or after the technology is sufficiently developed and improved?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by WildCat

If those forms of energy require subsidies then they're not really viable in the first place, are they? Now an argument could be made that these types of energy should be encouraged, but they shouldn't IMHO, since we already have a proven green technology that can handle all of our electricity needs with a much smaller footprint and more reliability than wind or solar - nuclear!

It's about developing technology and growing the scale of the product so you get the gains of mass production/consumption scales of efficiency. If no-one uses it because the existing forms of energy are already subsidised, (which they are in many ways), then it's not going to get a look in.

Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are developing, and getting cheaper, and getting more efficient and useful. Hurrying up that process makes perfect sense to me.

The history of successful societies is about the balance of individual freedom and collective action.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by WildCat

How many acres of wind and solar power would be necessary to replace the capacity of fossil fuel plants we have today?

And how much of what we use today is just wasted? The cheapest energy is the energy you don't use in the first place. Building design and public transport can realise massive savings in energy.

[my_wan]

Due to peak demands wind, solar, and most green technologies will not even reduce the max capacity needed to be built into the infrastructure. This is simply due to not having direct control of power output at any given moment. That being said maintaining a healthy market for these technologies is paramount. Not only will each KW produced remove the need to produce that KW by other possibly dirtier standard technology but will insure technological innovations in them. These technologies are important for more than just replacing co2 producing technologies. Whether it is fission, fusion, solar, wind, coal, gas, alcohol, fuel cells, geothermal, hydro power, or scrubbers such as chemicals like lithium hydroxide or organic like algae we need it all. The more tricks we have in our bag the better. Maintaining markets is the best way to do that regardless of the claim of needs. The market can grow technology much better and faster than a bunch of isolated research grants.

[a_unique_person]

The market has already failed. Market dominance, in which new competition is picked off, is the reason why.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The market has already failed.

"The market" has never worked in the way the free market cultists claim... often forcing them to lie, mislead, or ignore most of the important data.

Nuclear power, for instance? Developed on the government dime, not by "the market". Free market cultists will simply ignore that fact when discussing alternate energy sources.

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by WildCat

... Just so long as they aren't built where anyone has to look at them... hardly non-controversial.

Enter Ted (NIMBY) Kennedy and friends.

Quote:

The campaign to stop the wind farms was started by Cape Cod merchants and wealthy landowners. It's also opposed by almost every town government. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has a home overlooking the proposed wind farm, also opposes the project. So does one of Martha's Vineyard most famous residents, former CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

And how much of what we use today is just wasted? The cheapest energy is the energy you don't use in the first place. Building design and public transport can realise massive savings in energy.

New buildings are insulated to the hilt. It's usually not feasible to insulate an older building. For example, my place was built in 1914. The space between the 2nd floor and the roof is insulated, but the walls are not. Nor can they be short of tearing out every exterior wall and rebuilding it since the walls now consist of 3/4" furring strips nailed to the brick and wood lathe and plaster on that. No room for insulation.

Public transportation is great, too bad no one wants to pay for it, even here in 100% Democrat-controlled Illinois. In fact, it has been cut steadily over the years and drastic cuts are scheduled for January.

[my_wan]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

"The market" has never worked in the way the free market cultists claim... often forcing them to lie, mislead, or ignore most of the important data.

Nuclear power, for instance? Developed on the government dime, not by "the market". Free market cultists will simply ignore that fact when discussing alternate energy sources.

A free market cannot exist in a purely free market due to human greed. Nobody works harder against a free market than those already on the top of that market. Business must be required to compete within a set of rules and those violating those rules are the economic equivalent of mobsters. That being said even low competitiveness due to business tactics is more efficient than no free market. Before we broke up Ma Bell they provided much of the research innovations of the past in a wide array of technologies. I've also seen government grants get sucked up in some silly prototype display of standard technology and it was all essentially a joke. When buyers actually exist and business is responsible for actually finding a buyer to make money it works much better than grants.

For these reasons I will not listen to anti-free market rhetoric but I will definitely discuss the kinds of limits that should be placed on business practices. I don't want to hear about this or that is evil doom either. Every reasonable rule has both benefits and cost.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by my_wan

A free market cannot exist in a purely free market due to human greed. Nobody works harder against a free market than those already on the top of that market. Business must be required to compete within a set of rules and those violating those rules are the economic equivalent of mobsters. That being said even low competitiveness due to business tactics is more efficient than no free market. Before we broke up Ma Bell they provided much of the research innovations of the past in a wide array of technologies. I've also seen government grants get sucked up in some silly prototype display of standard technology and it was all essentially a joke. When buyers actually exist and business is responsible for actually finding a buyer to make money it works much better than grants.

For these reasons I will not listen to anti-free market rhetoric but I will definitely discuss the kinds of limits that should be placed on business practices. I don't want to hear about this or that is evil doom either. Every reasonable rule has both benefits and cost.

The thing is, there IS no "free market". I think you understand that, even though you're attached to the "free market" terminology.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

The thing is, there IS no "free market". I think you understand that, even though you're attached to the "free market" terminology.

Well, there's certainly no free market for energy, in any case.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

"The market" has never worked in the way the free market cultists claim... often forcing them to lie, mislead, or ignore most of the important data.

Last century was bursting with economic "experiments" showing a correlation between a free market (not an anarchy) and the general wealth and well-being of the average citizen. Theory proposed, predictions made, predictions came true.

Hint: This is not driven by well-meaning people in government who direct the economy. Moreover, that a government, beyond just protecting basic rights, occasionally produces (supposedly) useful "infield fly rules" to the economy is only a small addendum, not the core engine of a vibrant economy.

Quote:

Nuclear power, for instance? Developed on the government dime, not by "the market". Free market cultists will simply ignore that fact when discussing alternate energy sources.

"The market" is not seeing particularly gigantic stresses on supplying energy to a greedy population, in spite of the current hyperbole about oil. Therefore nuclear, solar, and what-not are not worth it, yet.

This is the same market speaking that has jammed your supermarket shelves with bananas in winter, coffee, tires, diapers, and whatever you, a free citizen, might want to buy because other free citizens choose, freely, to use their effort to supply you with these things in exchange for your cash, all the while people in the more command-and-control economies, or the more lawless ones for that matter, queue up for things. People rarely get a clue since "it's an emergency, and command-and-control is the obvious solution" is so seductive to voters. It "seems right", even though it is a deadly poison.

[King of the Americas]

And there is still wonder, as to why Congress' approval rating is in the pooper?

"But I likie MY Congressman!!!"

---

Until people start voting for or against THEIR Congressman's personal voting record, and NOT the letter by their name, we wil continue to get Represenatives unresponsive to our will.

---

What does it take these days to run and win a congressional seat?

Gerrymandering has redrawn MY district, so that anyone running would need a tour bus to campaign.

http://nationalatlas.gov/asp/cd_popu...w=750&imgh=452

I live near the U.S. 82 & I-35 junction.

To campaign I'd have to travel literally all over the panhandle.

[ravdin]

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Enter Ted (NIMBY) Kennedy and friends.

You beat me to it. I wouldn't want to spoil Ted Kennedy's view of the shore from his yacht.

[my_wan]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

The thing is, there IS no "free market". I think you understand that, even though you're attached to the "free market" terminology.

I'm not sure on how you define free. If you mean that I must pay $10 for a table at the flea market to sell my wares it's not free. If you mean business licensing that's not free. If you mean free the way I do then it just means same rules for all. In this regard it is free, mostly. Yes I take exception to some of the rules. I don't even like the practices coke and pepsi use against each other yet it would be suicide for one to drop such practices while the other continued. In Japan, at least as late as the 80s, you actually had to get written permission from any business within a certain distance that you might compete with before you could start another business.

The point here is that if you say there "there IS no free market" your going going to have to define "free market". Even pure communism is subject to the mechanisms of free market rules and can benefit or suffer according to those rules.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ravdin

You beat me to it. I wouldn't want to spoil Ted Kennedy's view of the shore from his yacht.

Be fair to poor Ted: he just wants a clear view of open water, in case any ghosts return from the depths, hellbent on revenge.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The market has already failed. Market dominance, in which new competition is picked off, is the reason why.

Thank you for adding another voice for truth AUP. Years ago a super carburetor was invented that allowed cars to get more than 100 mpg. The oil companies bought off the inventor and buried the information about it so they could continue to make their gigantic profits.

I know about this carburetor because I've been told about it many times. Just like I know the free market has failed because AUP told me it has and because giant corporations like Sears and GM have such a tight grip on the market that new competition is killed off by them before it can become viable.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Thank you for adding another voice for truth AUP. Years ago a super carburetor was invented that allowed cars to get more than 100 mpg. The oil companies bought off the inventor and buried the information about it so they could continue to make their gigantic profits.

I know about this carburetor because I've been told about it many times. Just like I know the free market has failed because AUP told me it has and because giant corporations like Sears and GM have such a tight grip on the market that new competition is killed off by them before it can become viable.

Advances in renewable energy by serious research scientists are happening right now. I'm not talking about wishful thinking. Australia has seen hi-tech hot water heaters head off to China for manufacturing, because we are smart enough to invent them at universities, but our markets are too dumb to capitalise on their market potential.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5060

Quote:

The Chinese government is encouraging new buildings and major users of heated water—such as hospitals, schools, restaurants, and swimming pools—to install water heaters powered by solar energy, according to a recent plan to promote nationwide use of the systems. “It is time for China to scale up use of solar water heaters as the technology has become mature and cost-effective,” a top official with the National Development Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s top economic planning body, noted at the International Solar Thermal Utilization Conference in Jinan last month. The official also said the government is considering a national policy to require installation of the systems.
Solar water heaters are one of the most commercialized clean energy technologies in China, with nearly 1 in 10 households owning one. A typical device, consisting of a two-square-meter collector with rows of glass tubes and a 180-liter storage tank, can provide hot water for a 3 to 4 person family at a minimum cost of around 1,500 yuan (US$195). In 2006, the industry had a turnover of more than 20 billion yuan (US$2.6 billion) in China and provided nearly 600,000 jobs. The total installed capacity of solar water heaters nationwide has reached some 90 million square meters, or roughly 60 percent of the world total, Xinhua News reported

http://www.solarhome.com.au/?p=10

Quote:

In relation to the questions about to whether evacuated tubes are effective in Australia I imagine the answer should be yes they are. The technology was developed by Dr. David Mills at the University of Sydney about 20 years ago [1]. There was little interest in the technology in Australia but Chinese firms took it up and manufactured under license to the University of Sydney. One would think than an Australian developed technology should be effective here.

Raw heat is one of the lowest grades of energy, but one of the major electricity consumers. Anything that can reduce the reliance on fossil fuels to heat water is essential for a renewable energy plan.

[my_wan]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Thank you for adding another voice for truth AUP. Years ago a super carburetor was invented that allowed cars to get more than 100 mpg. The oil companies bought off the inventor and buried the information about it so they could continue to make their gigantic profits.

I know about this carburetor because I've been told about it many times. Just like I know the free market has failed because AUP told me it has and because giant corporations like Sears and GM have such a tight grip on the market that new competition is killed off by them before it can become viable.

This is actually urban legend from a couple not just one invention. The story was that the oil companies bought the patent and buried it. Here's the problem. Patents are by definition public disclosure. The owner might prevent such carburetors from being sold commercially but that would only last 17 years. After that anybody can just look up the patent and build it commercially.

The claimed patents really do exist and the principle of operation is sound, at least for the first one. I actually looked these patents up years ago. The first one was simply a process of vaporizing the gas before being injected into the cylinders. This is in principle far more efficient than what was used at the time but nowhere near 100 MPH for the tanks they made back then. There is only so much energy in a gallon of gas regardless of how efficiently you use it. This legend began before injectors were invented that effectively doubled gas mileage. Why didn't the gas companies buy that?

In essence this legend was started by a guy that sold build it yourself manuals in the back of popular mechanics. I'm sure you can still get a copy somewhere. Build it for your own car and let us know how well it works.

A later version playing on the same mythology was a water injection system. Too many variables to discuss for me to get into.

One of those before the reality show boom reality shows like "That's Incredible" once featured someone who built one for a Lincoln. He claimed some pretty impressive gas mileage but nothing like 100 MPG.

[davefoc]

I don't think we disagree on anything you said in the post above AUP.

I just took a bit of an issue with what I view as the simplistic, evil capitalists are ruining the world conspiracy theory tone of your previous post and I thought I'd take a shot at a little humor to express my contempt for that idea.

In the US, if there is evil it is in the ethanol subsidy program. This is one of the largest scale criminal operations of all times. Rarely in the history of the world have such vast quantities of money been taken from so many and given to so view under such naked false pretenses.

Despite my libertarian leanings, I think there is a role for the government to play in promoting nascent alternative energy technologies. Unfortunately, in the US that role has become so corrupted that parts of it are reasonably designated a criminal enterprise.

my_wan,
Thanks for the info on the 100 mpg carburetor. I was vaguely aware that there was some real story that got the mythology rolling. By the time it had entered the national consciousness and I became aware of it any connection to reality had pretty much disappeared. But of course that does nothing to kill the story which is probably repeated in some form thousands of times a day in the US.

[Solitaire]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

What are these idiots DOING???!!? First Mukasey, now this? Next they'll be voting more money for Iraq, or supporting some stupid statement about Iran's army so Shrub can embroil us in a worse ****up than we're already in in Iraq.

Oh, yeah, right...

Hm...

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by davefoc

I don't think we disagree on anything you said in the post above AUP.

I just took a bit of an issue with what I view as the simplistic, evil capitalists are ruining the world conspiracy theory tone of your previous post and I thought I'd take a shot at a little humor to express my contempt for that idea.

In the US, if there is evil it is in the ethanol subsidy program. This is one of the largest scale criminal operations of all times. Rarely in the history of the world have such vast quantities of money been taken from so many and given to so view under such naked false pretenses.

Despite my libertarian leanings, I think there is a role for the government to play in promoting nascent alternative energy technologies. Unfortunately, in the US that role has become so corrupted that parts of it are reasonably designated a criminal enterprise.

my_wan,
Thanks for the info on the 100 mpg carburetor. I was vaguely aware that there was some real story that got the mythology rolling. By the time it had entered the national consciousness and I became aware of it any connection to reality had pretty much disappeared. But of course that does nothing to kill the story which is probably repeated in some form thousands of times a day in the US.

I agree the ethanol subsidy is wrong. But that's the problem, the dollars are being used to prop up the existing energy use, that is, the existing car, not to try to move on to the next level of technology.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally Posted by WildCat

If those forms of energy require subsidies then they're not really viable in the first place, are they? Now an argument could be made that these types of energy should be encouraged, but they shouldn't IMHO, since we already have a proven green technology that can handle all of our electricity needs with a much smaller footprint and more reliability than wind or solar - nuclear!

It's time to stop the BS and start building nuke plants again, and there are encouraging signs that the next big nuke plant building boom is about to happen.

[daenku32]

Virtually all the new nuclear plants going up around the world are government owned. What free nuclear market?

PS. Then there is all that money (NOT!) the "private industry" used to research the Yucca site. Or any other waste solution.