Eight Strikes and You'?re Out »
Posted By Beau7890 11 months ago in News
John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America' s energy crisis. "Tell them to come back and get to work!" McCain bellowed.
Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
3845 Views Share Story 27 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Beau7890
Truth rests on the mathematical reeds of the infinite and everything moves forward by order of the eagle riding pillion, while the genius of vegetable ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 52 (view all)
-
27%
Wolfie200711 months ago
FTA
Reply
"It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.
Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile. ' -
0%
Wolfie200711 months ago
"Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile. "
Reply
I don't know about the rest of you but I haven't felt any impact from solar or wind industries. I don't happen to like having to support new businesses. If a business can't make it without taxpayer dollars then that company shouldn't be in business. Wind and solar will not make the United States energy independent only drilling will.-
88%
Beau789011 months ago
If there is an impact to be felt by a quick and simple action, it'll be from extending credits (and would be improved by increasing those credits to provide incentives so companies would invest more in solar and wind power). Drilling, as I'm sure you've read by now, will not increase supply for at least 9 years, according to the Department of Energy.
Reply
Of course, the fastest impact on oil and gas prices would be to tap into our strategic reserves . What are they there for, if not to offset disruptions in the supply of oil like those we're experiencing now?
I understand that you don't like having to support new businesses, and I can see why it's not good policy for the government to do that, in general. However, when supporting those new interests can help further our national agenda (in this case, help reduce our dependence on foreign oil), it makes perfect sense. There are already many tax credits and deductions available to individuals and businesses--most of these exist in order to promote what the government feels is in the country's best interest. -
100%
Dionys11 months ago
" If a business can't make it without taxpayer dollars then that company shouldn't be in business."
Reply
Absolutely.
Let's start with the Oil and Gas companies and their government tax breaks, lease-price breaks and subsidies.
Then we can move on to logging companies for whom the public pays through the nose to provide roads.
Then we can let those various loan companies crumble so that the American Public isn't stuck with their bills.
Or GM.
Let us know when you'll start bitching and moaning about these companies.
Oh yes- - Let's get rid of the internet, too, since that was started through DARPA.
You first. -
100%
lfergie81211 months ago
Wolfie2007 said
Reply
"If a business can't make it without taxpayer dollars then that company shouldn't be in business"
I agree with you Wolfie. Let cut out the support to the oil companies that get millions of tax breaks from the taxpayers. While we're at it we can eliminate the farm subsidies that cost taxpayers millions of dollars alone with the bailout of Fanny May and all the other "businesses" that are failing because of poor government policies.
Wolfie2007 also said
"Wind and solar will not make the United States energy independent only drilling will."
That's great. Let them drill with their own money without taxpayers breaks and on the land that has already been approved for drilling. They have already gotten the price of gasoline near $4 a gallon with record breaking profits so why do they need tax breaks.
Wind and solar energy is the future and other countries are already ahead of us because of this administration's failed energy policies. -
100%
bruhaha10 months, 4 weeks ago
"Wind and solar will not make the United States energy independent only drilling will."
Reply
Drilling will NOT make the United States energy independent.
And based on your comments, you would agree that we should do away with the tax breaks, subsidies, etc for the oil and gas companies? -
100%
bigG10 months, 4 weeks ago
"Wind and solar will not make the United States energy independent only drilling will."
Reply
Drilling would only be part of the puzzle and it will take years to benefit from the areas people of your ilk keep talking about(Limbaugh,Coulter,Hannity, etc. induced I suspect)
Wind and solar power need to be a piece of the puzzle as well, as does conservation, the latter having the most immediate direct effect. (indeed it already has)
We also need to look at encouraging the use of high speed trains for transportation, especially between the major cities.
Oh, and by the way, my electric company tells me how much of the electricity comes from renewable resources, and it isn't enough(about 2 %). Maybe if the credits were extended that would change and help make the U.S. more energy dependent as well.
-
-
100%
populist11 months ago
600+ reads with just 5 votes in less than two hours. Wow.
Reply
I'm gonna go read another post 3000 times because it's so great!
(by the way, Beau, that's no indictment of you. I always enjoy your submissions. It's just that there's definitely been a concerted effort by some people on here to manipulate the stories on the front page by artificially increasing the "reads" on an article)-
-
100%
lfergie81211 months ago
Populist said
Reply
"there's definitely been a concerted effort by some people on here to manipulate the stories on the front page by artificially increasing the "reads" on an article)"
That's how AG and her gang get their stories on the front page. They send out messages to their shills and (drum roll please) ka da they're on the front page. LMAO
-
-
airwick1944Comment removed: User banned.
-
90%
Charlson11 months ago
Well now McBush has a new moniker - "No Show McCain". He's calling on Congress, which he is a member of, to get off their duffs and work out a solution to the energy crisis but has never showed up for a vote on pertinent energy bills. Another "do as I say and not what I do" moment in the life and times of "No Show McCain".
Reply-
100%
lfergie81211 months ago
I think that congress should go back and submit the S. 3335 bill again and see if that pleases him. It would do more to relieve our dependency on foreign oil sooner than the drilling which won't help until 10 years by government estimates.
Reply
-
-
91%
fsev4111 months ago
http://www.americanprofile.com/heroes/article/28270.html
Reply
Thought this would be an appropriate article, Yes wind is a viable short term help in diminishing oil dependence.
Also I do believe the oil companies are the recipient of numerous tax breaks. Why not the alternatives. -
20%
BB6411 months ago
"It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems." It's clear the author of this article has not clue the terms energy efficiency and wind or solar. Neither is efficient and neither will provide a cost effective solution within the next 50 years. The carbon foot print of wind machines alone would eliminate their building. Without the huge tax subsidies that are hidden in the energy markets, they never would be built. They produce reliable energy less than 30% of the time and require conventional or nuclear power to back them up. If the US was covered with windmills from sea to shining sea, we would only be able to provide a fraction of the actual power our nation needs.
Reply-
-
100%
bruhaha10 months, 4 weeks ago
Wind energy and solar are "up" considerably more that 30% of the time.
Reply -
100%
bigG10 months, 4 weeks ago
Tell that to T. Boone Pickens(you know, that multi-billionaire entrepreneur). He is investing heavily that it will and is building a huge wind farm right now.
Reply
I'll bet on his money rather than your mouth anyday.
-
-
-
100%
Beau789011 months ago
More expensive than repairing other energy facilities? Think of what's necessary to repair refineries, electrical distribution plants, and--holy cow--nuclear facilities!
Reply -
100%
lfergie81211 months ago
simonsez
Reply
From reading BB64's profile and comments he works for contractors that build coal to gas conversion plants. That's my guess and according to his comments, he is presently in China.
The windmills would be repaired on site. They have hoist built inside of them to raise heavy parts for repair. Electric plants have continuous repair crews on their generators and this would be no different.
-
-
0%
lloydm6511 months ago
Wind , solar,and all other alternatives are going to be wonderful,but so is running water.If someone has a theory that we will be able to make it rain at will someday,would you be willing to forgo increasing water storage right this minute.
Reply -
-
100%
flyonthewallzz11 months ago
In 1989 the oil industry in this country was suffering bad.
Reply
Fuel prices had dropped dramatically. (Check the time line for the windfall profits tax)
Our drilling equipment infrastructure closed its doors and collapsed.
Our refining facilities began shutting down.
Profits where hurting, and it paid the industry to make its money on imports.
We had effectively reduced our demand on petroleum to the point that we had to beg the industry to do their job.
In 1995 we gave them royalty free drilling off shore in the Gulf of Mexico and opened up their freedom to export their products. (Does the deep water royalty relief program apply to the future leases that are being pushed so hard?)
The SUV thing hit. Small businesses where offered rapid depreciation on heavy vehicles and baby boomers where paying big bucks on vintage muscle cars.
What happened? Production dropped dramatically, exports increased dramatically. ( We have never exported as much petroleum as we do now). Imports increased dramatically. (The last few years of the SPR fill has been imported oil in spite of the RIK program.)
Take a look at the data from the EIA.
The industry is global, and I think it is fair to say that Russia has quietly pulled itself up from its bootstraps as a result of the increased cost per barrel.
About 25% of the proven reserves on federal land are not producing in spite of leases being held and permits in place. If the lease was a private one, the industry would have to pay a penalty for not developing it. Generally the folks that go to the trouble to lease their land want to make a buck too. It seems to cost us to offer land.
Many of the folks here want to hold a pity party for the poor Oil industry.
“Poor Poor Oil industry!” -
-
100%
Beau789010 months, 4 weeks ago
Um, not if his absence keeps attendance below a quorum. Regardless, in the case of McCain's missed votes, there WAS a quorum.
Reply
Nice try though. -
-
100%
CaptainLucid10 months, 4 weeks ago
I hate to inform you but most JH students these days could not spell quorum let alone define it. If it is not on the "no child left behind" tests it is not taught. The fact that a vote occurred indicates that there was a quorum and makes your post an excercise in nonsense.
Reply -
-
-
0%
MaryLisa10 months, 4 weeks ago
Wind , solar,and all other alternatives are going to be wonderful,but so is running water.If someone has a theory that we will be able to make it rain at will someday,would you be willing to forgo increasing water storage right this minute.
Reply -
50%
chevydog10 months, 4 weeks ago
I can blow both ways. Several thoughts:
Reply
All my employers (chemical companies) have had the attitude that "If we need tax incentives to make the economics work, we're just not going to do it."
But more than a few companies have pushed ahead in fuel ethanol based on subsidies for producing that material.
Some people in their comments have complained about dereciation and depletion. These are real costs, though not cash costs. Equipment has a reduced value after it ages or is used, based on a variety of formulas; depletion being nothing but the mineral world version of depreciation. Homeowners have depreciation expense too; they're just not very well equipped to monitor it and almost never even try. But just try selling a 5--year-old lawn mower or a crib that's gone through two children, no matter how well taken care of, and you realize the reality of it.
The thing is that there are IRS regs (lots of them) on the procedures for accounting for both depreciation and depletion. And they do a reasonably good job of enforcing them. Yeah, some stuff -- usually high profile-- sometimes slips through the cracks; but they're the exceptions that prove the rules. Also, if one wants to play games with these costs, one ends up dealing with the professional sensibilities of herds of accountants. And, contrary to some stereotypes, I've found them to be pretty professional.
Solar panels depreciate too. And the value of that depreciation has to be charged to the cost of the electricity they produce. For all the postings on Propeller I've seen on the subject, I've never sen a real economic analysis under standard accounting rules comparing the cost of electic from solar panels to whatever comes off the grid.
Most of the stories one sees about solar power generation are about facilities in places like Florida and Arizona. I'm not certain about the technical criteria for siting things like these. But I can't escape the feeling that I'm looking best-case scenarios developed based on forecast costs and/or optimistic assumptions. Personally. I'd be less skeptical if I saw real economics for places like e.g. Nebraska, Missouri, or Michigan. People live there too. And if the economics were dependent on southern locations, lawmakers should be adjustng their support accordingly. We're not all sun bunnies.
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.