Just One Important Issue

[we vs us]

That's all fine and dandy, and he has made similar comments in the two previous SOTU speeches, but no action has been taken.  

Cite please.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I do not disagree with you!  Very good points!

Energy is energy, the source is unimportant.  Unfortunately, as you put it, coal and petroleum are the low hanging fruit.  They are also the only sources capable of stopping the economic hemorrhage.  Long term strategies are, have, and will continue to focus on cleaner energy.

Mr. Chu seems to think that we will only accept green initiatives by force.  Force will not produce the results that some liberals believe it will.  Force will capsize the ship long before it can be converted to run on a different energy source.

Wind/solar/biofuels are all technologies that are currently available, cost effective in MANY markets in this country - in particular, when compared to the 'other' darling of big energy, nukular!  And if trading as pure commodities were revoked, the hemorrhaging would be greatly mitigated.  If not eliminated.  Imagine what a little REAL competition would do to the whole market!!

As a country, he is right.  The fight by big oil/coal is couched in terms of "green" being impractical or out of reach, or unable to perform.  Green is not the relevant point.  Cost and economic activity derived from the technologies is more important - green just happens to be a very happy coincidence.  Big oil uses the "G" word to demonize these alternatives by association with what they call wacko environmentalists (WE's).  The rest of the world is able to see past this ploy and recognize and embrace the technologies without the emotional baggage of having a WE association.  We aren't that well evolved, yet.  I keep hoping...

As a society and individuals, there are many who are fighting all right - fighting for those alternative energies.  And using them at whatever level they are able to participate.

[Conan71]

Guess what?  If we had altered these policies 32 years ago, we would have a much broader supply of solar and wind energy within our own shores.  We would be gaining the benefit from the activity of developing and deploying those technologies.  The sandbagging of the Reagan and Bush years put us behind to the point where we have pretty much completely missed that market window.  And missed the chance to relieve the oil resources by diversifying our energy basket.  Solar and wind can be used today - in spite of formal resistance - to charge electric vehicles.  With range capacities that would satisfy well over 50% of the transportation needs of the country.

You mean the regulations that allowed oil and gas to be treated as complete commodities?  The ones that completely turned loose the traders to make Enron, Devon, and Williams Bros?  The same regulations that were eliminated under Reagan and Bush?  I can just hear the uproar from the Disciples...if the regulations were put back in place to regulate commodities trading!


Where I lay the biggest blame on the administration is a pattern of supporting largely impractical energy concerns while ignoring and, even at times, demonizing big oil.  Hate big oil as much as you like, but the truth is, we need them as there is still no other energy source which is nearly as practical and convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

By impractical, we can only surmise that means solar and wind - the same energy concerns that have been developed and deployed in the rest of the world, proving beyond any doubt the actual practicality of the two.  While oil (and coal) have worked behind and in front of the scenes to sandbag production and hinder the implementation of solar/wind - buying Congress (as bragged about by Jim Inhofe!) to keep us from benefiting from that economic activity.  And that doesn't even touch on biofuels...  

We will likely never outgrow the need for oil and coal - the energy density is just way too high to ignore or eliminate.  It is the "low hanging fruit" of energy.

We can certainly - easily and cost effectively - diversify and spread the risk of the limited number of energy sources.  As we can now see with the manufacture of wind towers up by Tiger Switch.

If you read my posts carefully, then you are quite well aware that I blame impotent energy policy dating back 30-32 years.

It's no secret that Reagan pretty much gutted funding for renewable energy and tax breaks for developers and end users of solar and wind systems.  Most certainly, we could be ahead of the curve had there been more emphasis on renewable energy in the 1980's.  I'm not aware of any "script" as you keep saying that praises Reagan for energy policy.  The only thing good during his administration was relatively stable energy prices, well at least until $40 oil collapsed to $9 oil which cost many jobs and helped lead to the S & L crisis, at least in major oil producing states like Oklahoma and Texas.

We haven't missed any window of opportunity, Heir, other than reigning in commodity trading (yep, deregulation of that industry was a major boner)  The wind farms already or under construction along the I-40 corridor bear out we haven't missed anything on wind energy.  There was far more movement in biofuels under the Bush admin than anything I've seen in the last three years.  Yet, the problem with what was being done, at least in terms of biodiesel from 2001 to 2008 was many small "pilot" plants rather than large scale refineries which can benefit from economy of scale and which can afford to reinvest in new technologies as it becomes available.  If fuel prices do get to $5.00 a gallon, I'll be really puzzled if biodiesel doesn't finally take off, especially recycled bio-d rather than virgin feed-stock.

That said, take a look at all the real estate it takes to generate a given amount of megawatts of power from wind mills or solar farms.  It's not as efficient use of land space as one single power plant.  I'm not personally aware of any large scale power plants still burning #2 diesel or bunker fuel to generate electricity.  So solar and wind do nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil in terms of power generation.  By and large it's coal and natural gas which are making electricity.  

Rather than having an electric car which struggles to keep up to freeway speeds and has a limited range, you can simply bypass needing natural gas-generated electricity to re-charge it and buy a vehicle powered by CNG.  As a commuter, I could get by with an electric car, but it wouldn't be practical for long trips or even running back and forth to OKC in a day.  I'd have to own at least a couple of different cars to support my common driving habits.  If electric cars were all that practical, there would be a whole lot more demand for them than there is at present.  The federal government and state governments have offered massive tax breaks for these vehicles, yet there's still really slack demand for them.

[Gaspar]

Nothing is going to immediately affect prices.   

I agree with everything else you said except this.  The spec market is predictable.  Open reserves, or approve applications for domestic production and it reacts, even though there may be no immediate effect on the production cost, the market cost decreases.  As a function of that, the foreign producers also react.  A very large part of their mechanism is keeping the shipping, refining, and production levels at a constant so as not to lose bandwidth capabilities.  When we make concessions that have an impact on long-term domestic prices, they lower their prices to maintain production levels.

We've seen in the past how quickly (within months) the price of gas goes down when we release relatively small amounts from our strategic reserves.  Take any step that threatens to lower total long-term costs and that effect is multiplied.

We can very quickly manipulate the cost of energy.  

[Conan71]

Most folks would agree with that at this point -- outside of the Treehugger.com universe of course. Any energy package has to be comprehensive, to include new drilling but also sustainable options as well (solar, wind, etc).  This also happens to be the way to get everyone to buy in.  Give the fossil fuel folks something to support and the greenies something to support.  I also think you're right, that trading needs to be curtailed, but that's such a huge issue, and one that dovetails strongly with financial reform.  And no one on Wall St. can abide even the relatively weak Dodd-Franks legislation.  I imagine limiting oil and gas traders would also be unpalatable.  Sadly, there is no magic bullet and there is no quick fix, as Gaspar seems to want.  Nothing is going to immediately affect prices.  This shouldn't be a reason for inaction, but it should be a reason to act like adults and take reasonable views of what is possible in the short, medium, and long term.  

Best line in your whole quote. 

I largely agree with what you are saying here, but our government needs to realize there's a very small segment of Americans making a living profiting off questionable trading practices which are brutalizing the other 300+ million of us.  Our government needs to turn it's attention to the citizens, not be slaves to the dooshes on Wall St.

I'd also give major oil companies huge incentives to plough large amounts of profits into alternative fuels research and refineries if they are not already doing enough to spur big oil to take the lead on alternative internal combustion fuels.  That would be every bit as much of a boost to bio-fuels but would also be a PR boost to the administration and to big oil.

[Gaspar]

Cite please.

SOTU 2010
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.

[we vs us]

SOTU 2010
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.

Not for that.  For whether he's actually done what he said he'd do. 

Regarding opening offshore areas for oil and gas . . . he did. 

"Nearly two years after the March 2010 [Deepwater Horizon] spill, the administration's new policy plans to open 38 million acres offshore of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to possible development in June 2012. The area will be available to deepwater drilling, said a press release from the Department of the Interior."

[heironymouspasparagus]

If you read my posts carefully, then you are quite well aware that I blame impotent energy policy dating back 30-32 years.

It's no secret that Reagan pretty much gutted funding for renewable energy and tax breaks for developers and end users of solar and wind systems.  Most certainly, we could be ahead of the curve had there been more emphasis on renewable energy in the 1980's.  I'm not aware of any "script" as you keep saying that praises Reagan for energy policy.  The only thing good during his administration was relatively stable energy prices, well at least until $40 oil collapsed to $9 oil which cost many jobs and helped lead to the S & L crisis, at least in major oil producing states like Oklahoma and Texas.

We haven't missed any window of opportunity, Heir, other than reigning in commodity trading (yep, deregulation of that industry was a major boner)  The wind farms already or under construction along the I-40 corridor bear out we haven't missed anything on wind energy.  There was far more movement in biofuels under the Bush admin than anything I've seen in the last three years.  Yet, the problem with what was being done, at least in terms of biodiesel from 2001 to 2008 was many small "pilot" plants rather than large scale refineries which can benefit from economy of scale and which can afford to reinvest in new technologies as it becomes available.  If fuel prices do get to $5.00 a gallon, I'll be really puzzled if biodiesel doesn't finally take off, especially recycled bio-d rather than virgin feed-stock.

That said, take a look at all the real estate it takes to generate a given amount of megawatts of power from wind mills or solar farms.  It's not as efficient use of land space as one single power plant.  I'm not personally aware of any large scale power plants still burning #2 diesel or bunker fuel to generate electricity.  So solar and wind do nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil in terms of power generation.  By and large it's coal and natural gas which are making electricity.  

Rather than having an electric car which struggles to keep up to freeway speeds and has a limited range, you can simply bypass needing natural gas-generated electricity to re-charge it and buy a vehicle powered by CNG.  As a commuter, I could get by with an electric car, but it wouldn't be practical for long trips or even running back and forth to OKC in a day.  I'd have to own at least a couple of different cars to support my common driving habits.  If electric cars were all that practical, there would be a whole lot more demand for them than there is at present.  The federal government and state governments have offered massive tax breaks for these vehicles, yet there's still really slack demand for them.

I saw the 30 year reference...just want to make sure that the entire world realizes that we had started one direction in the '70s and that was completely reversed in 1981 when the previously installed solar cells on the White House were removed.  Even though only symbolic, their presence was very symbolic, as was their removal.

The missed opportunity was the development and manufacturing of the product.  We are in support mode doing installs of equipment developed and mostly built elsewhere.  The value added of that 'earlier' activity is what I am getting at.

Biofuels at a scale any larger than home experimenter is so far a joke, like we have beat to death here.  There must be some sanity in Federal laws before large scale biofuels can compete with subsidized oil - but it's on the way in the home garage, regardless of DuPont, Hearst, and big oil.  When we as a people demand by election results that the ignorance in our biomass laws be removed, then biofuels will take off like a rocket.

Here is an interesting installation... Coca-Cola solarized their roof.
http://www.uni-solar.com/real-stories-2/coca-cola/

I suspect Tesla would take exception to the characterization about highway speeds and range.  Model S with 84kwh battery is looking very good to me right now.  And it looks good.  0-60 in 4.4 seconds.  I wouldn't know what to do with a "performance" car.

Even the Leaf is said to go 0-60 in about 10 seconds.  

My current traffic pattern takes all electric off the table (except for Tesla).  Prius would work well.  Volkswagen or Subaru diesel would be at least as good.

[JCnOwasso]

The Government is still working wind power.  There is still a proposed "green line" that would run from wind farms in the panhandle of OK to the Tennesee Valley Authority (TVA).  A portion of this project is to test the reliability and cleanness of the wind power being transmitted over a long run of transmission lines.

As for alternative fuels and other "green" modes of transportation, until it is proven that a hybrid does not do more harm than good (environmentally), They should be required to put the amount of GH gases produced in the production of the hybrid on the sticker, and then the number of years to "payback" with fuel savings based upon a vehicle with an EPA of 25 MPG.  It would actually be better to pick up one of the new Hyundai's with 35-40mpg than a prius.  Until the Telsa's come down in price, it is not a feasible alternative... and I guarantee if you drive it like they say it will perform (0-60 in 4.4 etc), your range will be pretty limited.  The newer diesel vehicles from VW are probably the best bet.   

[Gaspar]

Not for that.  For whether he's actually done what he said he'd do. 

Regarding opening offshore areas for oil and gas . . . he did. 

"Nearly two years after the March 2010 [Deepwater Horizon] spill, the administration's new policy plans to open 38 million acres offshore of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to possible development in June 2012. The area will be available to deepwater drilling, said a press release from the Department of the Interior."

Yes, I remember.  I even posted about it.  I gave him kudos, but questioned his reasoning for waiting until 2012.  Now those pigeons have come home to roost.   I can't say this enough, INTENSIONS ARE NOT RESULTS!

We've been beaten to a pulp with intension.  Just like when I hire someone to do a job. . .I tell them what needs to get done.  I don't need a story on how they intend to do it, or why they haven't, or when they propose to.  I desire a result.

When we elect a leader, we do so because we believe that his leadership will produce the results we desire, not because he/she means well.

[Conan71]

Not for that.  For whether he's actually done what he said he'd do. 

Regarding opening offshore areas for oil and gas . . . he did. 

"Nearly two years after the March 2010 [Deepwater Horizon] spill, the administration's new policy plans to open 38 million acres offshore of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to possible development in June 2012. The area will be available to deepwater drilling, said a press release from the Department of the Interior."

If it comes to pass in June, I applaud the action.  Hasn't happened yet.

[AquaMan]

Dang. You guys are good. I enjoy it when common perceptions are forced to be defended. It makes us all smarter and more interesting at parties. And in the end I suspect the same conversations are going on at top levels. However, there are more ingredients to the cake than are being listed.

Take one. The simplicity of the argument that a small decrease in cost yields a great increase in positive short term economic return. No doubt. And Obama may do that to get re-elected. But what about the long term implications? Is that a solution? More like a 7% solution of cocaine is a solution for depression.

I was surprised to hear a co-worker this morning, (in response to the prospect of $5 gal gasl.) suggest that people should loosely organize and buy all their gasoline on prescribed days in an effort to disrupt distribution. I'm not sure if she meant it as punishment for oil or an effort to show who swings the bigger stick or some misguided plan to lower the price because of resulting oversupply. But the thought of an organized Tea Party doing such things is pretty interesting. Talk about domestic terrorism. I remember French dairy farmers dumping milk on highways back in the 80's when milk processors were squeezing their profits and increasing their own by utilizing manufactured shortages. It was an economic and pr nightmare and brought about changes.

As usual, and as it always has been, our energy problems require a holistic approach which includes the stimulation of many kinds of energy, not just reducing the price of a gallon of gasl. by fiat or reduction in regulations. Congress is too busy with insider trading, lobbyists, and an implacable attitude towards this president to be useful in any energy solutions.

[Townsend]

SOTU 2010
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.

Two new nuclear reactors were just announced a few days ago.  The first in 30 years.

[Conan71]

I saw the 30 year reference...just want to make sure that the entire world realizes that we had started one direction in the '70s and that was completely reversed in 1981 when the previously installed solar cells on the White House were removed.  Even though only symbolic, their presence was very symbolic, as was their removal.

The missed opportunity was the development and manufacturing of the product.  We are in support mode doing installs of equipment developed and mostly built elsewhere.  The value added of that 'earlier' activity is what I am getting at.

Biofuels at a scale any larger than home experimenter is so far a joke, like we have beat to death here.  There must be some sanity in Federal laws before large scale biofuels can compete with subsidized oil - but it's on the way in the home garage, regardless of DuPont, Hearst, and big oil.  When we as a people demand by election results that the ignorance in our biomass laws be removed, then biofuels will take off like a rocket.

Here is an interesting installation... Coca-Cola solarized their roof.
http://www.uni-solar.com/real-stories-2/coca-cola/

I suspect Tesla would take exception to the characterization about highway speeds and range.  Model S with 84kwh battery is looking very good to me right now.  And it looks good.  0-60 in 4.4 seconds.  I wouldn't know what to do with a "performance" car.

Even the Leaf is said to go 0-60 in about 10 seconds.  

My current traffic pattern takes all electric off the table (except for Tesla).  Prius would work well.  Volkswagen or Subaru diesel would be at least as good.

Actually Reagan had the panels removed in '86 when the WH was re-roofed.  If the system was anything like residential solar at the time, sounds like it may have had the same life-span as residential units  I do get the symbolism it means to you though.

The Tesla is nowhere near practical for the middle class.  The S starts at $69,000 after a federal tax credit of $7500.  Holy crap!  That's not far off what I paid for my house three years ago.  Tesla is a boutique car or statement car.  There's simply nothing practical about it.  Even the low end unit starts at $50K.  The 300 mile range would get me to about Amarillo on my regular jaunts to Colorado and New Mexico before I'd have to plug in for awhile.

The Leaf runs $35K, and I believe that is after the tax credit (feel free to double-check me on that) and has a range 80 to 100 miles.  Looking on Nissan's web site, the battery capacity diminishes over time.  It's still not practical for the masses.  Certainly the price falls into more of a middle class price range but as JCN mentions, you'd be money ahead to buy a gas powered or even a hybrid Hyundai.  The Hybrid Sonata is only $25K and I'd consider it if I didn't already have a Sonata that I have no intentions of replacing for another 5-10 years.

Too bad someone hasn't managed to harness solar on these cars to recharge while it's in the parking lot at work or in the big box parking lot.

Here's what would make electric cars much more practical and available to the masses:

Price point under $30K
Range of 200+ miles
Top speed +/- 75 MPH
Doesn't look or feel like a glorified golf cart

[Conan71]

Two new nuclear reactors were just announced a few days ago.  The first in 30 years.

And those are on permits which were granted two or three decades ago.  The only thing we can thank the O Admin for on those is not quashing the permits.

As usual, and as it always has been, our energy problems require a holistic approach which includes the stimulation of many kinds of energy, not just reducing the price of a gallon of gasl. by fiat or reduction in regulations. Congress is too busy with insider trading, lobbyists, and an implacable attitude towards this president to be useful in any energy solutions.

You are preaching to the choir.  I think everyone agrees solid energy policy requires a multi-faceted approach.

In the near term, $5 gas will destroy the already fragile economy.

If gas prices truly are being manipulated to ensure a certain presidential election result as was suggested by another poster earlier, then it's pretty obvious there are some really powerful people in the background trying to ensure Obama is not re-elected.