Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Common Values -- Energy
7 years ago  ::  Oct 12, 2007 - 12:49PM #1
BeliefnetCheryl
Posts: 341
From the old board--

agomemnon00:

Common Values With Energy I think the one thing where we should have common values and goals is in regards to energy. Whether someone is liberal or conservative it should be our common goal to eliminate our need to import oil. How can we do it? I propose incentives and legislation for plug-in hybrid cars, electric cars, and multi-fuel internal combusion engines. The multi-fuel engines should be able to run on the following: ethanol, gasoline, hydrogen gas, natural gas. Whateve is done it must be able to run on hydrogen gas..even if it requires an upgrade. Notice I didn't mention CAFE standards. IF its a multi-fuel which could use a true alternative non-oil based fuel it would be excempt from the CAFE standards. The objective here is to get the commercial vehicle market to use alternatives as well as the personal transportation market. Also- its cheeper to make multi-fuel vehicles.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 11:26AM #2
Norm_uk
Posts: 74
Can't really argue with that...although I think it's more important to get national power grids reliant on renewable sources before cars, planes and trains.

Ethanol is ariculturally intensive to produce, and is actually going to cause the loss of natural forest if relied upon too much.

I think we should be looking at nuclear, wind, solar and tidal...perhaps geothermal where it can be harnessed and continue to refine our combustion/electric hybrid engines for now.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 20, 2007 - 1:58PM #3
NJLee
Posts: 2,191
[QUOTE=BeliefnetCheryl;351]From the old board--

agomemnon00:

Common Values With Energy I think the one thing where we should have common values and goals is in regards to energy. Whether someone is liberal or conservative it should be our common goal to eliminate our need to import oil. How can we do it? I propose incentives and legislation for plug-in hybrid cars, electric cars, and multi-fuel internal combusion engines. The multi-fuel engines should be able to run on the following: ethanol, gasoline, hydrogen gas, natural gas. Whateve is done it must be able to run on hydrogen gas..even if it requires an upgrade. Notice I didn't mention CAFE standards. IF its a multi-fuel which could use a true alternative non-oil based fuel it would be excempt from the CAFE standards. The objective here is to get the commercial vehicle market to use alternatives as wat ell as the personal transportation market. Also- its cheeper to make multi-fuel vehicles.[/QUOTE]

At $90 a bbl, there is enough market incentive to use less oil.

What we should do about could also be a market function by find the most attractive alternative and keep politics out of it.

Consider where we would be if we, like France, produced 75% of our electricity by Nuclear.  Enviornmentalist have put a huge financial and moral burden on the American people, by preventing the development of nuclear energy.

Ethanol, a federally nandated solution require 1700 gallons of water to produce a gallon of Ehtanol.  And huge subsidies and disruption to US and world agriculture.

And the reality is that that there is an abundant supply of oil in the world today and there is no economic reason for not using it.  The same thing for natural gas. 

I advocate market solutions n a conservitive, progressive way.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 01, 2007 - 9:24PM #4
Toyland
Posts: 9
Energy didn't become a partisan issue until the Reagan administration. In the 1970s, it was very bi-partisan. It was Nixon who proposed the 55 MPH speed limit. Nixon also  was the first to propose tax credits for alternative energy development. Ford and Carter expanded these initiatives.  Much of the alternative energy technology we use today, particularly wind and solar, can trace their origins back to 1970s research that was funded in part by these tax credits.

When Reagan came along he made energy conservation a "liberal" issue by associating it with the failed Carter administration, and it has been that way ever since. Tax credits were curtailed, and oil drilling became the mantra of the 1980s.

The question is, how can we get conservatives to rediscover conservation as their own?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 02, 2007 - 1:41PM #5
NJLee
Posts: 2,191
Whatever the politics, the energy issue is very complex and is a mix of politics and market realities

On markets and economics

We have over a 100 year supply of oil
We have over 1000 years of natural gas
Nuclear Power is the most environmentally sound source of electric power

Ethanol, our best alternative puts an enormous strain on the agricultural sector, drives up prices of food and more, and is not as efficient of gasoline.

On Politics

So called environmentalists are putting a great strain on the markets allocation of energy and the cost of our energy sources. 

The political issue of global warming is fraught with bad science and inadequate measures to combat what might be a unique long term trend of global temperatures.  Sadly, the bias in the media doesnt always reflect the real world.  For example antartic icebergs are more massive than in history.

And the overall issue is whether we can actually change major trends, or even effect global environmental trends.

So what  I see is the answer is to slowly do the best we can but with complete information available to the public and an open mind to all responsible observers and of course KEEP POLITICS OUT OF IT.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Nov 27, 2007 - 11:54AM #6
nightchi
Posts: 156
For long range solutions, we need to wean ourselves from dirty, nonrenewable energy, which means all oil, not simply imported oil. Admittedly, imported oil poses a higher threat to national security.

To this end, it makes sense to divert the $35 billion (a conservative estimate) in government subsidies to  oil companies into subsidies for renewable energy.

The World Energy Council estimates that funding of $15-20 billion over several decades would be required to both improve renewable energy technology (e.g. solar and wind power) and boost deployment to the point where the industry is cost competitive.

Oil companies, who currently suck in $600 billion in worldwide subsidies make $1 trillion in profits. Subsidizing them further is useless, and diverting those funds to clean energy solutions is a no brainer.

Oh.. 100 years of oil reserves left????? No one really knows. More realistic estimates, which calculate the growing demand in China and India, claim 25-40 years. The reality is that the amount is finite. We will run out.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 17, 2008 - 1:41PM #7
boodlebear
Posts: 1,053
Later comer here.  I'm sorry if this is the wrong board to post this and if the moderator would kindly move it to where it belongs..... Renewable energy that is cost efficient.
After reading these posts here I would like to suggest the use of industrial hemp.  And I would like to encourage folks to speak up here in this forum yeas or nays but let's discuss this possibility.  It is viable and renewable, takes little time to grow and gives back to the Earth instead of depleting Her.  It is a plant that should be decriminalized.  Other countries are using it. Why not here? (rhetorical question).
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook