(10-13-2009 08:42 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(10-09-2009 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's basically a 20% reduction, and Europe runs a comparable economy on 40% less than we use, so there ought to be a way to get there over time.

I'm henpecking here, but we've already discussed, ad nauseum, the flaw in that argument - Europe also has a much denser population, with a fantastic system of public transportation. It's not quite apples to apples, though I do agree with your general sentiment.

I said "in time." The situation today, which you describe, is not necessarily the situation in the future. We can't move Idaho closer to Michigan, but we can do a lot more with inner-city rail, mass transit, and the like.

You have correctly identified the flaw in the conservation argument. It is going to take a very long time to achieve the kinds of savings we need--probably a generation, minimum. Same for the exotic alternatives; if anything, the lead time is longer on them. That means that we need to do two things immediately, (1) get started on putting conservation measures in place, and (2) realize that we can't put all our eggs in the conservation basket, and do what we need to do to get from here to there. That means using the alternatives that are available now and, like it or not, it means drill here, drill now and nuclear--the numbers just don't work otherwise.

Drill here, drill now, tax it, and use the taxes to build a new conservation infrastructure--the Paris Hilton energy plan makes more sense than anything either party has proposed.

I forgot to chime in on the self sustaining resource production issues.

There have been several comments that suggest that we dont produce enough food to feed ourselves (as a nation). I'll admit that I haven't seen any numbers recently, but I have a really hard time believing that when we are dumping (heavily subsidized) corn and grain on world markets. Our crop mix may not be ideal, for more reasons than one (see the sugar ethanol discussion as well), but we are still a breadbasket/overproducer. We should always maintain this production capacity, even if it becomes less efficient.

I feel the same way about energy. But Im repeating dozens of my previous posts on the subject, so I'll stop.

(10-13-2009 08:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-13-2009 08:42 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(10-09-2009 12:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's basically a 20% reduction, and Europe runs a comparable economy on 40% less than we use, so there ought to be a way to get there over time.

I'm henpecking here, but we've already discussed, ad nauseum, the flaw in that argument - Europe also has a much denser population, with a fantastic system of public transportation. It's not quite apples to apples, though I do agree with your general sentiment.

I said "in time." The situation today, which you describe, is not necessarily the situation in the future. We can't move Idaho closer to Michigan, but we can do a lot more with inner-city rail, mass transit, and the like.

You have correctly identified the flaw in the conservation argument. It is going to take a very long time to achieve the kinds of savings we need--probably a generation, minimum. Same for the exotic alternatives; if anything, the lead time is longer on them. That means that we need to do two things immediately, (1) get started on putting conservation measures in place, and (2) realize that we can't put all our eggs in the conservation basket, and do what we need to do to get from here to there. That means using the alternatives that are available now and, like it or not, it means drill here, drill now and nuclear--the numbers just don't work otherwise.

Drill here, drill now, tax it, and use the taxes to build a new conservation infrastructure--the Paris Hilton energy plan makes more sense than anything either party has proposed.

My father in law is in the nuclear industry. I'm very plugged into that and more supportive of it than many.

But begging your conclusion - how do you mandate alternative energy infrastructure investment by the private industries that would profit from drill here, drill now? Opening up ANWAR or whaterever doesn't guaranty one dime of reinvestment (unless you legislate requirements as a condition.. which most on here wouldnt do due to ideology).

(10-13-2009 07:57 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(10-12-2009 04:53 PM)GGniner Wrote:  

(10-12-2009 04:45 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  My view...It sucks and will continue to suck for at least another 2 quarters. Until the housing glut is resolved...nothing will improve greatly. Housing is the fuel for a good economy. The construction business is DEAD.

you contract with any of the big national builders in CLT/Raleigh/Gboro? If so who is strongest position in CLT right now, in your opinion?

also, any advice on a cheap way to build a nice Wet Bar(i.e. cabinets, sink, granite top)? I figure there is alot of excess inventory floating around that can be bought cheap

For my bar in my media room I bought some "display model" Kraftmaid cabinets at Home Depot. (70% off) Sure some nicks and scratches, but nothing a little stain and puddy didn't cover. For the countertop I bought was "scrap" granite ( I only needed 4 feet) and while it isn't from the same slab, you can't really tell. Cost $20.00 sq. foot. The only thing I really spent much money on was a copper sink and the faucet. The most expensive part of the project was running the electrical wiring and the plumbing since the "bar" is a converted coat closet.

I'd love to find a deal like that at lowe's/home depot on displays.

I have a large area, with the plumbing already in place for a bar, next to my movie room. Want to do something that turns out nice, on the cheap. At minimum sink with cabinets below and then cabinets above sink.

I think you can find bar sinks online cheap.

(10-13-2009 09:15 AM)Artifice Wrote:  My father in law is in the nuclear industry. I'm very plugged into that and more supportive of it than many.
But begging your conclusion - how do you mandate alternative energy infrastructure investment by the private industries that would profit from drill here, drill now? Opening up ANWAR or whaterever doesn't guaranty one dime of reinvestment (unless you legislate requirements as a condition.. which most on here wouldnt do due to ideology).

Two things:
1. There's not more investment in alternatives today because alternatives are not price competitive. That's one reason why some tax on fossil fuels is good. In my approach, you tax conventional fuels up to where alternatives are price-competitive, and the market takes over from there. You really don't need subsidies for alternatives at that point. The market will take care of it if you get the pricing right. And given the number of hidden costs of oil (environmental, Iraq, etc.), it's easily justifiable. Also, note that "drill here, drill now" won't produce cheap oil. That's not the reason for doing it. It will actually be pretty expensive oil. The people who claim that "drill here, drill now" means "pay less" aren't telling the truth any more than the ones who say "drill here, drill now" won't do anything for 10 years and won't provide any significant relief ever.
2. Oil companies are reluctant to invest in alternatives because, given the way politicians like to beat them up publicly, there is a great risk that they'll dump a whole bunch of money into development only to get a product market ready and have the government step in and say, "Oops, anti-trust, you're dead." This points to one of the big things that Brasil did well with Petrobras. After the Brasilian government divested control to the private sector (because they concluded that a government-run entity couldn't be nimble enough to respond to what was needed) they launched a private development effort working hand-in-hand with Petrobras to get ethanol done. The anti-oil-company crowd will scream to high heaven, but like it or not, the oil companies are who is in position to implement the infrastructure necessary to convert to alternatives. So instead of beating them up for show at every turn, form a cooperative venture to get done what is needed. Does it make more sense to build new ethanol stations across the street from the Exxon station, or to simply sell ethanol through the Exxon station?

Brasil is a roadmap of where to go. Yes, it's a smaller economy with much smaller energy consumption. But it also didn't start out with some of the resources we have at our command. But it did have a much better concept of how to use those resources than we do.

Paris Hilton has a better energy plan than either major party. She really does. How bad is that?

I think its hot.

We have to begin to understand we are a poor country and stopping making decisions based on emotions. We have to use common sense logic. WE CAN NOT CHANGE THE WHETHER. We must use the the lowest cost energy sources that supplies the masses the product most efficiently. No government subsidies and stop the BS about solar and alternative sources. They are NOT economical TODAY. We will need capital every dollar possible to feed people so stop pi$$ing it away on un profitable ideas.

Note to the Obama Administration....

Since he took office early last year, Raúl Castro has been saying that the country's severely battered economy needs fixing. In a widely quoted August speech, Castro said Cuba was spending more than it made.

"Nobody, no individual nor country, can indefinitely spend more than she or he earns. Two plus two always adds up to four, never five," he said. "Within the conditions of our imperfect socialism, due to our own shortcomings, two plus two often adds up to three."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/77132.html

(10-14-2009 06:57 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Note to the Obama Administration....

Since he took office early last year, Raúl Castro has been saying that the country's severely battered economy needs fixing. In a widely quoted August speech, Castro said Cuba was spending more than it made.

"Nobody, no individual nor country, can indefinitely spend more than she or he earns. Two plus two always adds up to four, never five," he said. "Within the conditions of our imperfect socialism, due to our own shortcomings, two plus two often adds up to three."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/77132.html

.... WMD unfortunately we will not change until there is complete chaos in the country. Like the little boy who doesn't believe mom the stove will burn his hand until he touches the stove, FEELS THE PAIN and then realizes he can not pursue that behavior anymore.

(10-13-2009 02:20 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  We have to begin to understand we are a poor country and stopping making decisions based on emotions. We have to use common sense logic. WE CAN NOT CHANGE THE WHETHER. We must use the the lowest cost energy sources that supplies the masses the product most efficiently. No government subsidies and stop the BS about solar and alternative sources. They are NOT economical TODAY. We will need capital every dollar possible to feed people so stop pi$$ing it away on un profitable ideas.

The use of new fuels is not about the weather. It's about a long term goal of not having to spend money elsewhere on oil, at a value that we can't really control. Our nuts are in a vice to another country, needless to say we need to pull them out. It's about independence and possible long term jobs.

(10-14-2009 11:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  The use of new fuels is not about the weather. It's about a long term goal of not having to spend money elsewhere on oil, at a value that we can't really control. Our nuts are in a vice to another country, needless to say we need to pull them out. It's about independence and possible long term jobs.

The problem with this argument is that solar and wind power are not substitutes for oil. We're probably at least 10 years, and more likely 20-25 years, away from having in place the transmission infrastructure and the electricity storage capacity (which still hasn't been invented, much less built) that would enable us to transform wind and solar energy into something that will power a substantial number of cars down the road. There is a bait-and-switch aspect of the alternative fuels argument that is pretty despicably dishonest, and it needs to be eliminated.

There is a very strong argument for alternatives, and they should be pursued much more vigorously than we are now--and much more vigorously than anything Obama is proposing. He wants a million electric cars on the road by 2015. That number is so small as to be meaningless. But it's probably on the upper limit of what we can sustain without infrastructure improvements far beyond the magnitude of anything he is proposing. If we follow Obama's energy "plan" completely, domestic oil production will decline faster than oil consumption, meaning that we will import more oil in 2015 than we do today.

Look at the numbers. The problem is much bigger than the solutions being proposed by either side. We import 13 million barrels of oil a day. We probably won't get 13 million barrels from drill here, drill now, and we certainly won't get it from windmills and solar. But if we split it up--4 million from additional production of conventional fuels, 4 million from alternatives, 4 million from conservation--we can craft a workable solution.

Drill here, drill now could probably provide 2 million in 5 years, 4 million in 10. What about the study that said no relief for ten years? Good question--the numbers I quote are actually from that study, if you read what the study acutally said insted of stopping at the politicians' spin. That's not a complete solution, but it is more bang for the buck, and quicker, than we can get anywhere else domestically. It is also not "pay less"; new domestic oil will be pretty expensive. Nuclear plus transmission and delivery infrastructure plus progress in developing electric cars can probably replace another 2 to 4 million in about the 15-year time frame. Developing domestic sugar cane ethanol, plus importing from Latin America, could probably replace 1-2 million barrels a day (2-3 if we lift the trade embargo with Cuba), and that comes very short term (1-3 years). We're still importing, but now we have some pricing leverage to play ethanol against oil, and we're helping the Latin economies which should help with drugs and immigration problems. Wind and solar, with the same accompanying improvements discussed for nuclear, might get us 1-2 million barrels in 15 years. Conservation has to be the main driver long term, and there is considerable potential. Europe supports a comparable economy using half the oil per capita that we do. Unless we can figure out how to move Los Angeles as close to Chicago as Paris is to Brussels, I doubt we can get anywhere close to Europe's number. But 4 million barrels is a 20% reduction, not a 50% reduction, and that should be doable, realistically in about the 25-30 year time frame if we can fast track it. Again, Obama's proposals in this area don't go far enough. We need to tax conventional energy up to parity with alternatives (say, gasoline at $4/gallon) and let the free market take it from there. Those taxes have to be offset by tax cuts elsewhere to avoid tanking the economy, and any net revenues need to go to fund conservation efforts. This is going to be expensive, so get over any notions of "cheap"; there are no cheap solutions to this problem.

That's a plan that would work. What's scary is that it's basically the Paris Hilton plan. A ditz has a better energy plan than either major party.

(10-14-2009 11:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(10-13-2009 02:20 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  We have to begin to understand we are a poor country and stopping making decisions based on emotions. We have to use common sense logic. WE CAN NOT CHANGE THE WHETHER. We must use the the lowest cost energy sources that supplies the masses the product most efficiently. No government subsidies and stop the BS about solar and alternative sources. They are NOT economical TODAY. We will need capital every dollar possible to feed people so stop pi$$ing it away on un profitable ideas.

The use of new fuels is not about the weather. It's about a long term goal of not having to spend money elsewhere on oil, at a value that we can't really control. Our nuts are in a vice to another country, needless to say we need to pull them out. It's about independence and possible long term jobs.

Nomad that cap & trade bill was about "Green" and bad big oil. It is not a solution to our energy issues. We have resources, but we refuse to deploy. We must go nuclear. We must use natural gas. We must drill for oil. Those are real and practical solutions to our problems. The political class is refusing to use our resources to solve our problems.

When we have a Nobel Peace prize winner in Al Gore talking carbons our problems will not be solved in a positive manner.