The U.S. needs a gradual carbon tax that would provide incentives for us to stop wasting energy and make alternative energy economically viable. The tax should go directly back to energy users who would be hurt most by higher gas prices and electricity rates (small business, farmers, folks in rural area, etc.) in the form of a tax credit.
This also would stimulate the private sector to invest in alternative energy and greater innovation.
I blogged on this last night so I'll just paste my blog here:
We have heard President Obama's address to the nation on the Gulf Coast oil spill. As expected, there were more calls for "comprehensive energy reform", "green energy", and "renewable energy". These have been mantras of the Administration since day one. I too would like to see a reduction in Americas dependence on foreign oil, but a major move to get off fossil fuels completely has been a hot political button for some time. The left will claim right wing loyalties to "big oil" or "corporate interests" and the right will point out the absurdities of "envrionmental whackos".
Although I have never been a hardcore science buff and Einsteins E=mc2 has always eluded me, I came across this article that explains the theory in a way that I found remarkably understandable. It also explains why the obstacles of renewable energy are not political but physical. It is not a particularly long read, but it is a fascinating one:
Reading the article begs the question...Unless President Obama can change the laws of physics or embrace nuclear energy with more enthusiasm, just how does he expect to implement broad, realistic, and impactful renewable energy policies?
Solar, wind and water can make dirty fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power plants unnecessary and obsolete. Gasoline could still be made avaiable for the Dinosaurs who refuse to change, at twenty dollars a gallon.
George will be dead before alternative energy replaces oil. That might be ok. But its all a farce just like climate change and the carbon tax. The government wants control of more money so they need an excuse or a new crisis to justify taxing industry profits and redistributing the wealth to the wacko government programs that won't do anything but waste money. For example George just think of the many alternative uses you might have right now for bacon grease, but nothing is quite so good as petroleum based vaseline or KY.
Thanks for the link, Jeff. I didn't realize that a windmill produces so little electricity. The Navy has been using nuclear power pretty safely since the very early 60's.
Thanks Dave, I didn't realize the link was bad. I fixed it in my original post.
This is the president who promised to bring science back to the forefront and yet his agenda appears to ignore the very principles that make it an extremely limited if not impossible pursuit.
The author of the Energy Tribune article, William Tucker, is a longtime nuclear proponent and is supported by think tanks funded by nuke corporations. I think he has some good points, but I'm still suspicious. His contention that there is no such thing as nuclear waste, for example, hurts his credibility in my eyes.
I don't think he says there's no waste. He side steps it as an issue. He minimizes it as a problem.
But my question is: So?
If we want to live in a modern, technological society, there's going to be problems. Either we contaminate the environment using fossil fuel, or we deal with nuclear waste. Pick your poison. Literally.
There are drawbacks to all energy sources (oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, thermal, etc), all have problems. Just look at the trouble around here getting wind farms approved. The decision is really which will have the least negative impact.
Dennis, I went back and reread the article and I have to agree with Howard. Tucker does not assert that the creation of nuclear energy produces no waste, he just does not address it. I do however have to take issue with your first statement. It is the old tack that if the writers facts are sound then impune the motive or character.
Howard maybe Obamer would give you alternative energy stimulus money to develop the new technology necessary to harness the energy from all the local small town political blowhards on here. Blahh ha ha ha ha.
I wasn't referring to Tucker's statements in the article. I Googled him and read about previous statements and his background. He pretty much disses all other forms of energy.
Howard, fossil fuel vs. nuclear is a false choice. Our "modern, technological society," wastes massive amounts of energy because it's cheap. Greater efficiency (encouraged by higher prices) could cut consumption by 20%. Alternative energy could add another 20% and that would be enough to eliminate the need for off-shore drilling, nuclear, etc.
I have a moral problem with nuclear energy. Creating substances that could kill massive amounts of life for 10,000 years is an unkind legacy for future generations.
Greater efficiency (encouraged by higher prices) could cut consumption by 20%. Alternative energy could add another 20% and that would be enough to eliminate the need for off-shore drilling, nuclear, etc.
Please come back from la la land when the mushrooms taper off.
You all seem to be drinking from the same kool-aide container supplied by fossil fuel interests and their lackey Republicans. Read the objective economic analyses about green energy and efficiency -- they create jobs and add to GDP.
The status quo that you all promote will leave one hell of a legacy for our grandkids and their grandkids.
We also need more interest in biodiesel production-some states require all diesel sold to be at least a B2 blend(2% biodiesel)-not much,but a start.As far as I know,there are NO outlets for biodiesel in WNY-there was a couple near Albany I believe,but nothing here.I would gladly use it-it's better for the engines. Everyone is on the ethanol bandwagon-you get less mpg,and will eventually damage your fuel system.They don't tell you that though.Most stations around here are now 10% ethanol.
Dennis, how do you assert that the science behind "power density" is a right-wing, oil interests tool. Physics is a constant so unless we desire a landscape completely dominated by windmills and solar panels how do we "go green" in a plausible and practical fashion. All Republicans are not fuel guzzling, environment hating kool-aid drinkers. I consider myself an "eco-conservative" (just made that up). I drive fuel efficient vehicles, recycle everything I can and I'm off plastic bags in favor of the re-usable shopping bags. I am also a realist and if the science does not support the notion of a alternative energy America anytime soon then in the mean time we have to peacefully co-exist with fossil fuels.
Jeff, stop confusing him with facts and science and math. I can't for the life of me understand how someone who calls themselves an environmentalist could support a cap & trade. All it does is allow those with the money to buy the right to pollute. If you want to reduce emissions, fine I'm all for it, incentivize those who reduce their emissions, and fine those who don't by forcing them to invest the fine in something that reduces the polluting they are causing. I'm sure I'm going to be told AGAIN that I'm no expert or not the smartest guy (this I know), but it seems like a plan to me. This is the best the guys who are supposed to smarter than me can come up with?
I have an idea for replacing petroleum based products.
Hemp!! And before you or anyone else tries to write me off as some pro marijuana hippie or pro drug whacko. Well I can assure you I am neither of those.
Hemp, prior to being made illegal along with the Marijuana originally in 1937 with the Marijuana tax act, was used primarily for textiles such as rope and canvas. Over the years in countries where it was not illegal and prior to being made illegal in our own country, there were people developing products from various parts of the Cannabis Sativa L. plant. Henry Ford actually made an automobile prototype constructed out of resin hardened hemp fibers.
There is a rather iconic picture of Henry Ford with a sledge hammer in his hand swinging it to strike a body panel of the Hemp car.
Ironically Hemp was featured in an article of Popular Mechanics in 1937 touting the plant with over 25,000 different uses. including bio-fuel, paper products, clothing, food products just to name a few.
For more information on how Hemp can help to ween us from fossil fuels go to one of the following links.
Lumber lobbyist and lets not forget DuPont. They developed a way to pulp paper with chemicals that would prevent the yellowing and rapid deterioration commonly associated with paper made from wood fibers.
DuPont and Hearst had lots to loose. so they pulled their strings to make sure hemp was included.
Doing research on my own about the differences between Hemp and Marijuana has led me to discover that it is the same plant. The difference comes about in the way the plant is grown. For a Cannabis Sativa L. plant to produce a large amount of THC the plant cannot not have any male plants near by that would fertilize the plant. This is why Marijuana is grown selectively instead of how Hemp is grown. Hemp is grown to maximize the fiber and seeds.
This is why I find it funny when I saw a picture of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan standing next to "Marijuana" (Hemp) plants growing wild. The plants were tall and resembled bamboo. They could have sat there for the next week smoking as many of those plants as they wanted and would have not gotten high. When the Hemp plant is fertilized it renders the THC content practically nill. It is usually less than .03 percent. The average Marijuana plant has a THC content of .20 percent on average. The continued ban by the DEA based on fears of people misusing Hemp fields to hide Marijuan plants is really unfounded. Not to mention that in European countries they have been genetically altering seeds to prevent the plant from generating THC contents higher than .03 percent regardless of growing conditions.
The U.S. needs a gradual
The U.S. needs a gradual carbon tax that would provide incentives for us to stop wasting energy and make alternative energy economically viable. The tax should go directly back to energy users who would be hurt most by higher gas prices and electricity rates (small business, farmers, folks in rural area, etc.) in the form of a tax credit.
This also would stimulate the private sector to invest in alternative energy and greater innovation.
I blogged on this last night
I blogged on this last night so I'll just paste my blog here:
We have heard President Obama's address to the nation on the Gulf Coast oil spill. As expected, there were more calls for "comprehensive energy reform", "green energy", and "renewable energy". These have been mantras of the Administration since day one. I too would like to see a reduction in Americas dependence on foreign oil, but a major move to get off fossil fuels completely has been a hot political button for some time. The left will claim right wing loyalties to "big oil" or "corporate interests" and the right will point out the absurdities of "envrionmental whackos".
Although I have never been a hardcore science buff and Einsteins E=mc2 has always eluded me, I came across this article that explains the theory in a way that I found remarkably understandable. It also explains why the obstacles of renewable energy are not political but physical. It is not a particularly long read, but it is a fascinating one:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469
Reading the article begs the question...Unless President Obama can change the laws of physics or embrace nuclear energy with more enthusiasm, just how does he expect to implement broad, realistic, and impactful renewable energy policies?
Solar, wind and water can
Solar, wind and water can make dirty fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power plants unnecessary and obsolete. Gasoline could still be made avaiable for the Dinosaurs who refuse to change, at twenty dollars a gallon.
George, Read the link posted
George,
Read the link posted by Jeff Allen. Then defend your position.
Also, what is your plan to replace oil based products used in plastics, clothing and other none fuel related products?
George will be dead before
George will be dead before alternative energy replaces oil. That might be ok. But its all a farce just like climate change and the carbon tax. The government wants control of more money so they need an excuse or a new crisis to justify taxing industry profits and redistributing the wealth to the wacko government programs that won't do anything but waste money. For example George just think of the many alternative uses you might have right now for bacon grease, but nothing is quite so good as petroleum based vaseline or KY.
Thanks for the link, Jeff. I
Thanks for the link, Jeff. I didn't realize that a windmill produces so little electricity. The Navy has been using nuclear power pretty safely since the very early 60's.
deleted
deleted
NIMBY is killing the
NIMBY is killing the expansion of alternative energy sources, be it nukes, wind turbines, solar, whatever.
Everyone wants us off fossil fuels but noone wants the facilites to replace fossil fuels in their neighborhood.
And noone wants to foot the monstrous bill for these new facilities either.
Thanks Dave, I didn't realize
Thanks Dave, I didn't realize the link was bad. I fixed it in my original post.
This is the president who promised to bring science back to the forefront and yet his agenda appears to ignore the very principles that make it an extremely limited if not impossible pursuit.
The author of the Energy
The author of the Energy Tribune article, William Tucker, is a longtime nuclear proponent and is supported by think tanks funded by nuke corporations. I think he has some good points, but I'm still suspicious. His contention that there is no such thing as nuclear waste, for example, hurts his credibility in my eyes.
I don't think he says there's
I don't think he says there's no waste. He side steps it as an issue. He minimizes it as a problem.
But my question is: So?
If we want to live in a modern, technological society, there's going to be problems. Either we contaminate the environment using fossil fuel, or we deal with nuclear waste. Pick your poison. Literally.
There are drawbacks to all
There are drawbacks to all energy sources (oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, thermal, etc), all have problems. Just look at the trouble around here getting wind farms approved. The decision is really which will have the least negative impact.
Dennis, I went back and
Dennis, I went back and reread the article and I have to agree with Howard. Tucker does not assert that the creation of nuclear energy produces no waste, he just does not address it. I do however have to take issue with your first statement. It is the old tack that if the writers facts are sound then impune the motive or character.
Howard maybe Obamer would
Howard maybe Obamer would give you alternative energy stimulus money to develop the new technology necessary to harness the energy from all the local small town political blowhards on here. Blahh ha ha ha ha.
I wasn't referring to
I wasn't referring to Tucker's statements in the article. I Googled him and read about previous statements and his background. He pretty much disses all other forms of energy.
Howard, fossil fuel vs. nuclear is a false choice. Our "modern, technological society," wastes massive amounts of energy because it's cheap. Greater efficiency (encouraged by higher prices) could cut consumption by 20%. Alternative energy could add another 20% and that would be enough to eliminate the need for off-shore drilling, nuclear, etc.
I have a moral problem with nuclear energy. Creating substances that could kill massive amounts of life for 10,000 years is an unkind legacy for future generations.
Greater efficiency
Greater efficiency (encouraged by higher prices) could cut consumption by 20%. Alternative energy could add another 20% and that would be enough to eliminate the need for off-shore drilling, nuclear, etc.
Please come back from la la land when the mushrooms taper off.
So let's just kill the
So let's just kill the economy and raise the cost of living for working people by artificially increasing the price of fuel.
Thats exactly what cap and
Thats exactly what cap and trade is going to do. So dress warm.
Richard, Where did you get
Richard,
Where did you get your numbers?
You all seem to be drinking
You all seem to be drinking from the same kool-aide container supplied by fossil fuel interests and their lackey Republicans. Read the objective economic analyses about green energy and efficiency -- they create jobs and add to GDP.
The status quo that you all promote will leave one hell of a legacy for our grandkids and their grandkids.
Mushrooms may be all they have left. :)
We also need more interest in
We also need more interest in biodiesel production-some states require all diesel sold to be at least a B2 blend(2% biodiesel)-not much,but a start.As far as I know,there are NO outlets for biodiesel in WNY-there was a couple near Albany I believe,but nothing here.I would gladly use it-it's better for the engines. Everyone is on the ethanol bandwagon-you get less mpg,and will eventually damage your fuel system.They don't tell you that though.Most stations around here are now 10% ethanol.
Dennis, how do you assert
Dennis, how do you assert that the science behind "power density" is a right-wing, oil interests tool. Physics is a constant so unless we desire a landscape completely dominated by windmills and solar panels how do we "go green" in a plausible and practical fashion. All Republicans are not fuel guzzling, environment hating kool-aid drinkers. I consider myself an "eco-conservative" (just made that up). I drive fuel efficient vehicles, recycle everything I can and I'm off plastic bags in favor of the re-usable shopping bags. I am also a realist and if the science does not support the notion of a alternative energy America anytime soon then in the mean time we have to peacefully co-exist with fossil fuels.
Jeff, stop confusing him with
Jeff, stop confusing him with facts and science and math. I can't for the life of me understand how someone who calls themselves an environmentalist could support a cap & trade. All it does is allow those with the money to buy the right to pollute. If you want to reduce emissions, fine I'm all for it, incentivize those who reduce their emissions, and fine those who don't by forcing them to invest the fine in something that reduces the polluting they are causing. I'm sure I'm going to be told AGAIN that I'm no expert or not the smartest guy (this I know), but it seems like a plan to me. This is the best the guys who are supposed to smarter than me can come up with?
@ John Roach, I have an
@ John Roach,
I have an idea for replacing petroleum based products.
Hemp!! And before you or anyone else tries to write me off as some pro marijuana hippie or pro drug whacko. Well I can assure you I am neither of those.
Hemp, prior to being made illegal along with the Marijuana originally in 1937 with the Marijuana tax act, was used primarily for textiles such as rope and canvas. Over the years in countries where it was not illegal and prior to being made illegal in our own country, there were people developing products from various parts of the Cannabis Sativa L. plant. Henry Ford actually made an automobile prototype constructed out of resin hardened hemp fibers.
There is a rather iconic picture of Henry Ford with a sledge hammer in his hand swinging it to strike a body panel of the Hemp car.
Ironically Hemp was featured in an article of Popular Mechanics in 1937 touting the plant with over 25,000 different uses. including bio-fuel, paper products, clothing, food products just to name a few.
For more information on how Hemp can help to ween us from fossil fuels go to one of the following links.
http://www.votehemp.com/general.html
http://www.voteindustrialhemp.com/
One of the main reasons hemp
One of the main reasons hemp became illegal was because of lumber lobbyists. The special interest/ big money game has been going on forever.
Lumber lobbyist and lets not
Lumber lobbyist and lets not forget DuPont. They developed a way to pulp paper with chemicals that would prevent the yellowing and rapid deterioration commonly associated with paper made from wood fibers.
DuPont and Hearst had lots to loose. so they pulled their strings to make sure hemp was included.
Doing research on my own about the differences between Hemp and Marijuana has led me to discover that it is the same plant. The difference comes about in the way the plant is grown. For a Cannabis Sativa L. plant to produce a large amount of THC the plant cannot not have any male plants near by that would fertilize the plant. This is why Marijuana is grown selectively instead of how Hemp is grown. Hemp is grown to maximize the fiber and seeds.
This is why I find it funny when I saw a picture of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan standing next to "Marijuana" (Hemp) plants growing wild. The plants were tall and resembled bamboo. They could have sat there for the next week smoking as many of those plants as they wanted and would have not gotten high. When the Hemp plant is fertilized it renders the THC content practically nill. It is usually less than .03 percent. The average Marijuana plant has a THC content of .20 percent on average. The continued ban by the DEA based on fears of people misusing Hemp fields to hide Marijuan plants is really unfounded. Not to mention that in European countries they have been genetically altering seeds to prevent the plant from generating THC contents higher than .03 percent regardless of growing conditions.