Energy Policy

[Marvin S]

It seems that it might be good to have an energy policy related thread here, so here goes.

Check out the article at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5002#more.

Lots of thought provoking information. I generally agree with the approach advocated by the author. I am curious what others think. There are also a series of energy policy articles on this website that may also be worth discussion.

A fundamental belief for most of the contributors to this site is that oil supply is finite and when considering energy options for the future, that the return on energy must be greater than the energy required to extract it.

The extractive industries received a subsidy of sorts, called a depletion allowance, not sure it is in effect today. Both OIL & other minerals were subject to a 27% depletion allowance. The only catch was, it had to be taken from a profit. That's why those schemes for mines, etc. always seem to find willing investors.

I support updating the energy grid to include nuclear, railroads - especially for passenger service, waterborne transport, the highway system with an Eisenhower type plan. National projects would be run & financed at the national level, local projects would be local responsibility. The Davis Bacon act would be repealed for these projects so the taxpayer would receive full value for their dollar.

For those industries in the embryo stage, my personal opinion is time will be needed to allow the kinks to be ironed out. Example: wind is constant except when it isn't - how do you store the juice until the demand is there? At what price? Many projects get cancelled as they will not pencil with the true costs & allow a reasonable rate of return. I'm already paying a subsidy on the ethanol plan: 1st thru my tax dollars for the Farm Bill, 2nd thru greatly increased costs of anything associated with corn or grain.

Being against anything is not an option if it will return costs & contaminate less - but it has to be the true cost.

[Henry V]

A great background article on tar sand oil in National Geographic this month. See http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...ds/kunzig-text

An interesting article on the prospect of $300 a barrel oil article at
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...-3A8D60BE1F0B}

[Hoosier]

I think it's clear that the Obami administrations' answer to everything is another tax.

http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt...54844120090304

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - U.S. oil and natural gas producing companies should not receive federal subsidies in the form of tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress on Wednesday.

It was one of the sharpest attacks yet on the oil and gas industry by a top Obama administration official, reinforcing the White House stance that new U.S. energy policy will focus on promoting renewable energy sources like wind and solar power and rely less on traditional fossil fuels like oil as America tackles climate change.

"We don't believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy (like oil and gas) that are dramatically going to add to our climate change (problem). We don't think that's good economic policy and we think changing those incentives is good for the country," Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on the White House's proposed budget for the 2010 spending year.

The Obama administration's budget would levy an excise tax on oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico, raising $5.3 billion in revenue from 2011 to 2019.

[Raymond Little]

Just wait till his broke azz supporters have to buy $10
bread at the govt grocery store. Forgot, they don't pay for their groceries, we do!!

[JDogger]

Just wait till his broke azz supporters have to buy $10
bread at the govt grocery store. Forgot, they don't pay for their groceries, we do!!

Stop shouting. OK?

[Raymond Little]

ok, jdogger

[Franco]

I think it's clear that the Obami administrations' answer to everything is another tax.

The Obama administration's budget would levy an excise tax on oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico, raising $5.3 billion in revenue from 2011 to 2019.

That's all they know how to do; tax, spend and lie.

That 5.3 billion tax will be passed on to the consumer. Don't think for a moment that the only ones that are going to pay more are those with family incomes over 250k.

$4.00 a gallon is going to seem cheap by the time this administration is done! Just watching them in action and at news conferences is sad as they are truly in over thier heads. We have a bunch of inexperienced idiots running the show!

[Henry V]

Another interesting article:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/14/20-...nergy-oil.html

[subroc]

I visited the website and perused a bit.

An energy policy must be concerned with generating energy. While other factors can be considered, an energy policy that ties its own hands by advocating the use of energy generation that isn't ready for prime time, wind and solar, at the expense of coal and oil is downright foolish. Ignoring our own oil supply, North Slope and off shore, is criminal. All that is doing is raising the price.

As far as the rail system, if I remember correctly, it was the lefties that advocated “rails to trails.” Now many of those rail pathways have been given up, can they be gained back?

Nuclear can be the answer. I have no problem, even with the old type reactors so any new type reactors that are more efficient and require less refueling is OK with me. I expect the left wing will protest this as well. Any building of any energy generation plant of any type will find them outside protesting some perceived grievance. Think Clam Shell Alliance.

Another left wing site that at its center asserts wind and solar is the answer, oil and coal is bad and anything CO2 related is the evil of all evils.

So I repeat, an energy policy must, at its center, be concerned with generating energy. If it concentrates on other things that supersede this, it is something other than an energy policy.

BTW, show that any of these alternatives are capable of providing the energy needs of a home in the northeast in winter at a similar cost for system installation and use, then it is ready for prime time. Don’t artificially increase the price of existing systems and products with onerous taxes in an effort to force the use of technologies that are not ready for consumer use.

[road kill]

If HUGE tax incentives were tied to the company that discovers an alternative energy source (other than anything on the table now) it would happen within 2 years!!

NOT an over simplification, FACT!!