Energy Policy

[hockeydork]

9 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

The government will rarely ever be successful in “taking something away from you” that you already own.  That being said, they’ll raise taxes on gas to dissuade you from owning it.  Or your state will raise the cost of renewing your tags but will give a large discount on EV tags.  Also, the government will require new gas cars to be able to get current gas mileage + a new X miles to the gallon in 5 years.  On and on.  They’ll just make it more difficult for you to keep your vehicle and will incentivize you to buy a new EV with taxpayer money (“cash for clunkers” anyone??), or most likely, future taxpayer’s money.  And just like I was against cash for clunkers, I was against the auto bailout as well.  But there’s no way the government was going to let those union jobs fail.

None of this will be done to directly help people, rather it will be done in the name of “fighting climate change”…and yet the elites will still have whatever they want to drive, their private jets, etc because they can afford it.  

As for the infrastructure piece, we can definitely argue that one—I’m all for new nuclear power plants, but the left in recent times hasn’t been as for it, so that’s not helping.  Also, the GOP says they’re for it, but doesn’t really do much to get it done.   But are vehicles infrastructure?  Do EV’s cause any significant benefit to reducing wear/tear on roads?  

And that's fine man, I am fine with your counter position so long as its consistent. For me the autos had to be bailed out as a matter of national security, losing the ability to build transportation in house domestically would be a giant vulnerability to the security of the country. For me it was a necessary "socialist act" to preserve our free capitalist society. 

And I hear you about the potential for the government to over react to gas owners, but to me they haven't really punished ICE vehicle owners yet. The new LS engines are freaking awesome, and make more power on less gas than any of the Vettes that have come before. If they do punish ICE owners I will line up right next to you and back you 100 percent. But I am fine with them "rewarding" someone who is willing to buy an EV to offset my polluting lead foot. 

I will also restate that if electricity costs get cheap enough, which they have been, certain bio fuels that are currently not worth it may become worth it. Even if I have to pay todays equivalent of 3.85 a gallon for some bio butanol in 15 years, do I really give a sh*t so long as I can hear my V8 scream? There is a middle ground solution to be found here where everybody wins, and you and I can skip off into the sunset holding hands. 

 

[hockeydork]

28 minutes ago, Blue said:

The entire discussion around EVs as a panacea for high oil prices seems a bit misguided.  About 40% of the typical barrel of oil is turned into gasoline.  The rest goes to jet fuel, diesel, resins, etc.  If you waved a magic wand and turned every personal vehicle in the US into an EV overnight, you'd still have the same problems of securing a steady oil supply.

Def not a panacea but would provide more stability. Some useful charts for your talking point and others:

[GrndPndr]

When the truck pulls up to the jet with that chemtrail stuff, I always think that's made from petroleum?

[HeloDude]

[bfargin]

https://www.prageru.com/video/how-much-energy-will-the-world-need?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_3965824

Interesting summary of energy trends and cost. Bottom line, we've only moved 2% of energy usage away from fossil fuels to wind and solar (over the past 20 years) in spite of governments spending more than 5 Trillion on solar and wind technology and incentives.

[hockeydork]

21 hours ago, bfargin said:

https://www.prageru.com/video/how-much-energy-will-the-world-need?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_3965824

Interesting summary of energy trends and cost. Bottom line, we've only moved 2% of energy usage away from fossil fuels to wind and solar (over the past 20 years) in spite of governments spending more than 5 Trillion on solar and wind technology and incentives.

That draws a lot of conclusions that I don't agree with. Like because we're at 2% it means we can't get to 30%? There was a time and place when only 2 percent of the population had cell phones. 

The idea that we've spent all this money on nothing? Not quite, the progress is pretty dramatic:

5 trillion on a life changing technology is nothing. We spent 2 trillion on the Iraq war. I don't even want to know how much was spent going from this:

to this:

The one thing I do agree with in that video is the radical greenies need to get in check with reality and understand we don't live in disneyland. Those metals will need to be mined, there will be consequences on the environment, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The good news is they only have to be mined once and can be recycled over and over. 

[HeloDude]

14 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

That draws a lot of conclusions that I don't agree with. Like because we're at 2% it means we can't get to 30%? There was a time and place when only 2 percent of the population had cell phones. 

The idea that we've spent all this money on nothing? Not quite, the progress is pretty dramatic:

5 trillion on a life changing technology is nothing. We spent 2 trillion on the Iraq war. I don't even want to know how much was spent going from this:

Or this…

https://www.usdebtclock.org
 

It’s a good thing that bad monetary/economic policies have never negatively impacted nations. 

[hockeydork]

7 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Or this…

https://www.usdebtclock.org
 

It’s a good thing that bad monetary/economic policies have never negatively impacted nations. 

Copy, wind mills have put this US into unrecoverable debt. Good thing we can keep drilling holes in the ground because we'll never run out of oil. 

I can't wait for somebody to invent a bottle of JD that never runs out too. 

[HeloDude]

4 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Copy, wind mills have put this US into unrecoverable debt. Good thing we can keep drilling holes in the ground because we'll never run out of oil. 

I can't wait for somebody to invent a bottle of JD that never runs out too. 

We will screw ourselves financially as a country before we run out of fossil fuels.  

And unnecessary government spending on anything has put us into unrecoverable debt, whether that’s on windmills or a useless government studies .  But what’s fascinating is that you just agreed that the debt is a massive problem (“unrecoverable” using your words) and yet you’re still advocating for government spending to reduce using fossil fuels for our energy needs.

 

[hockeydork]

27 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

We will screw ourselves financially as a country before we run out of fossil fuels.  

And unnecessary government spending on anything has put us into unrecoverable debt, whether that’s on windmills or a useless government studies .  But what’s fascinating is that you just agreed that the debt is a massive problem (“unrecoverable” using your words) and yet you’re still advocating for government spending to reduce using fossil fuels for our energy needs.

 

I think you missed my sarcasm. The fact that you think fossil fuels don't receive subsidies, makes me wanna cry. 

[Blue]

1 hour ago, hockeydork said:

That draws a lot of conclusions that I don't agree with. Like because we're at 2% it means we can't get to 30%? There was a time and place when only 2 percent of the population had cell phones. 

The idea that we've spent all this money on nothing? Not quite, the progress is pretty dramatic:

5 trillion on a life changing technology is nothing. We spent 2 trillion on the Iraq war. I don't even want to know how much was spent going from this:

to this:The one thing I do agree with in that video is the radical greenies need to get in check with reality and understand we don't live in disneyland. Those metals will need to be mined, there will be consequences on the environment, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The good news is they only have to be mined once and can be recycled over and over. 

This whole post is full of nothing but useless whataboutism.

 

[hockeydork]

7 minutes ago, Blue said:

This whole post is full of nothing but useless whataboutism.

 

Sure. You're going with the there will be less electrical generation from wind turbines in 10 years time and electric cars are a gimmick.  

 

Good luck in life. Why don't you go short Tesla? 

Edited March 29, 2022 by hockeydork

[Blue]

7 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Sure. You're going with the there will be less electrical generation from wind turbines in 10 years time and electric cars are a gimmick.  

Good luck in life. Why don't you go short Tesla? 

So, I didn't say any of those things.  And I'm not sure why Tesla's stock price is relevant to the current discussion.....

[hockeydork]

5 minutes ago, Blue said:

So, I didn't say any of those things.  And I'm not sure why Tesla's stock price is relevant to the current discussion.....

Because the video he posted basically said that because in the past we've gotten the majority of our fuel from fossil, that's how it will always be going forward in the future. Talk about useless "whataboutism". 

Did you even watch the video? Or just coming in hot spewin? 

 

Edit to add: The video talks about the need to mine metals for batteries. I'd say that's relevant to Tesla's future....

Edited March 29, 2022 by hockeydork

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, hockeydork said:

I think you missed my sarcasm. The fact that you think fossil fuels don't receive subsidies, makes me wanna cry. 

I’m against all subsidies for businesses, energy or otherwise.  Not sure where I said I fossil fuels do or do not receive subsidies? 

[nsplayr]

On 3/28/2022 at 3:55 PM, bfargin said:

https://www.prageru.com/video/how-much-energy-will-the-world-need?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=campaign_3965824

Interesting summary of energy trends and cost.

Prager U has a very pronounced bias, I would proceed with caution with anything they put out.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, we get 12% of our overall energy from renewables and 20% of our electricity from renewables, as of 2020 (latest data they published).

 

Edit to add: So the video talked about global usage vs US that I cited above, but global energy mix has about 16% renewables + nuclear so IDK what data they’re using.

Edited April 2, 2022 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Prager U has a very pronounced bias, I would proceed with caution with anything they put out.

Says the guy who recently shared an article written by Matt Yglesias…who co-founded Vox, and has written for The Atlantic, Slate, and Think Progress.  Yeah, no “pronounced bias” there.  

https://www.vox.com/authors/matthew-yglesias

[nsplayr]

54 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Says the guy who recently shared an article written by Matt Yglesias…who co-founded Vox, and has written for The Atlantic, Slate, and Think Progress.  Yeah, no “pronounced bias” there.  

https://www.vox.com/authors/matthew-yglesias

The Prager U video seems to use some data about global energy mix that isn’t accurate. I provided credible sources that seemed to contradict their main point. Let’s talk about that instead of literal whataboutism.

Do you think renewables are in fact used as little as their claim, rather that what the EIA published?

[brickhistory]

14 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

 I provided credible sources that seemed to contradict their main point. 

...

Do you think renewables are in fact used as little as their claim, rather that what the EIA published?

I think maybe you missed his point.  Those sources are credible to you.  Perhaps not to others.

As to the EIA, tell me again what type of Administration is in power currently and how might that skew data?

Or, as with the CDC/NIH/FBI/CIA, et al, is the provided data pristine and not subject to review.

The government wouldn't lie, would it?

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

According to the US Energy Information Administration, we get 12% of our overall energy from renewables and 20% of our electricity from renewables, as of 2020 (latest data they published).

But are those renewables all energy positive?  For all the energy used in realizing them less than what was expressed when consumed? 

That's the problem with most renewables, most when the total chain of production, distribution and disposition is considered they are likely net negatives (looking at you corn based ethanol).

Much of their business is possible thru tax credits, subsidies and other non-market force interventions for various reasons, some pure some not so much.

Edited April 2, 2022 by Clark Griswold

[uninformed]

On 3/29/2022 at 1:59 PM, hockeydork said:

I think you missed my sarcasm. The fact that you think fossil fuels don't receive subsidies, makes me wanna cry. 

hockeydork, based on a quick Google search, fossil fuel in the US receive roughly $20 billion in government subsidies but bring in $110-$140 billion in tax revenue...so it's a net gain for the government.  Can wind and solar make the same claim?

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

I think maybe you missed his point.  Those sources are credible to you.  Perhaps not to others.

As to the EIA, tell me again what type of Administration is in power currently and how might that skew data?

Or, as with the CDC/NIH/FBI/CIA, et al, is the provided data pristine and not subject to review.

The government wouldn't lie, would it?

I get what you're saying, to a point. Trust but verify. But I mean...do you believe USAF mishap data? The DoD and USAF are part of the executive branch just like the EIA. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the EIA data.

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

But are those renewables all energy positive?  For all the energy used in realizing them less than what was expressed when consumed? 

Yes, absolutely.

Goods that are commercially installed to produce or release energy are all massively energy-positive...otherwise we wouldn't produce them and no one wouldn't buy them. A solar panel requires energy to produce, sure, but then produces much more energy over its useful lifespan. The same goes for an offshore oil rig.

Obviously some experimental stuff (like our current fusion research reactors) are not net energy-positive, but they're research projects. Utility-scale solar, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, natural gas power plants, coal-burning power plants, etc. are not research projects.

I am with you that ethanol fuels are stupid and I would end ethanol blending rules and subsidies right now. Growing and processing foods in monoculture fields and then burning it to power vehicles is dumb. Other biofuels have more promise IMHO.

Edited April 2, 2022 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The Prager U video seems to use some data about global energy mix that isn’t accurate. I provided credible sources that seemed to contradict their main point. Let’s talk about that instead of literal whataboutism.

Do you think renewables are in fact used as little as their claim, rather that what the EIA published?

Just stop man.  If you’re going to make a point by discussing bias (that you don’t agree with) and not even address your own biased source when called out, then the conversation is dead.

[bfargin]

Here are the date points from the same Our World in Data source used by NSPlayr. I don't know where the Prager U speaker got his data/information but this data shows he wasn't far off with the 2% change in energy consumption from Solar and Wind. This graph shows it went from less than 1/2 a % in 2000, to just over 3% in 2019 (their latest validated year for world energy consumption that I could find).

Obviously my stated bias is Nuclear but I do see a role for solar and other renewables (I've had solar on my roof since January 2016 and haven't paid an electric bill since - and get a yearly check for my roof's production surplus). I calculated an 8 to 9 year oay-back when I installed the system and am on track to reach payback at 9.5 years. Without the 30% TVA tax credit it would have been closer to a 20 year payback. I admit my personal hypocrisy in accepting the government tax credit while advocating for less government interference. At my age I wouldn't have made the move without the credit. If I had been in the same financial situation when I was 30 I might have still done it without a government subsidy/tax credit.

I'm for pretty much anything other than coal for electricity production (though I recognize that the industry continues to improve on the efficiency and cleanliness of coal). And, I guarantee any of you guys who are north of 50 like me, can attest to the improvement in our environment over the past 40 years (water and air). We need to be good stewards but we can't let emotion and the leftist shrills screw up everything in the name of another crisis. Slow and steady wins most races and is usually the best policy.