Why is alternative energy a political issue?

[JustinDeeMan]

[quote



You don't understand the issue. Several posts have detailed just how our reliance on oil supports national diametrically opposed to the US. Furthermore, other threads have discussed how drastically reducing US demand will essentially rip out the hearts of those economies, likely replacing them with US friendly regimes. Furthermore, your sheer ignorance as to how commodity markets work is obvious. Merely drilling more in the US does not equate to changing who has the power in the global exchange markets. US oil will be priced at the same level and the US simply lacks the capacity to ramp up production to change total supply in any meaningful way. Nor can the US do so in a way that is cheap enough to change the base line commodity prices. Shale oil is not $2 cost per barrel LSC out of Saudi Arabia.
[/quote]


This is what I am talking about.

 

[obvious Child]

It's not that interesting once you understand commodities market. OPEC controls the lion share of oil, and Russia plays along as well. The US cannot add even 1 million barrels to the world daily supply in a timely fashion. Simple economics dictates that adding a minute amount to a large supply will not materially change prices. One more head of lettuce in a stack of 500 doesn't change the price. Similarly, 1 million more barrels added to 85 million won't do much. Hence why when Saudi Arabia sold its excess during the $147 dollar days, prices did not notice. Furthermore, keeping the US within the oil market ensures that petrodictators will have cash flow. Imagine 300 million consumers suddenly not buying oil. The largest economy reducing demand to tiny amounts. You'll see serious changes across the oil bound Middle East.

If you want to reduce prices here, we need to go Chavez style nationalization. I don't advocate that.

Alot of people talk about domestic drilling but really have no concept of economics and how oil relates to geopolitical relationships.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Awww. Cute! Another person completely ignorant to how commodity markets work.

Don't shout, or everyone will know you secrets.

Tell me, what on Earth makes you believe that US oil markets would be unaffected by global oil events?

What on earth makes you believe the US should sit idly by and let hostile strangers jerk it's economy around?

What on earth makes you think the US couldn't regulate oil from it's oil wells to be sold at a low fixed price to Americans and at the global price for export, and control it so imports only exist to cover temporary imbalances in domestic consumption?


If you want to reduce prices here, we need to go Chavez style nationalization. I don't advocate that.

Yes, that can be done. Any nation that can create the US tax code can figure out where the oil comes from and where it goes, with it's eyes closed.

And of course shale oil is economical. At least to independently derived and technically disimilar processes have been established to extract oil-equivalent from the shale, and each process was priced at less than thirty dollars per barrel of extracted oil, in the late 1990's.

Yawn.

So many people want to pretend the possible isn't just so they can continue to pursue their own impprobable dreams without competition.

If you want to reduce prices here, we need to go Chavez style nationalization. I don't advocate that.

We ALREADY HAVE that. Except in the United States, the nationalization is of the form: "That oil reserve belongs to the government, and the government says it's not ever ever, and we mean NEVER coming out of the ground".

At least Chavez is letting the Venezualans USE their natural resources.


Also...the US CAN produce millions of barrels a day...if we actually start building oil wells and tapping the reserves, eventually we'll have production rates up where we need the to be.

The argument that the small baby can't pick up the bowling ball now, so he'll never through a strike is lame. They grow in strength, ya know.

 

[obvious Child]

Don't shout, or everyone will know you secrets.

Well, it's no secret you don't understand what a commodity market is.

What on earth makes you believe the US should sit idly by and let hostile strangers jerk it's economy around?

Nothing. Hence why I've argued to get off of the entire oil market system. Or did you fail to notice that in the post you just quoted? :roll:

Seriously.

What on earth makes you think the US couldn't regulate oil from it's oil wells to be sold at a low fixed price to Americans and at the global price for export, and control it so imports only exist to cover temporary imbalances in domestic consumption?

Nothing. Hence why I stated nationalization a while back. Do you have some kind of reading problem?

Yes, that can be done. Any nation that can create the US tax code can figure out where the oil comes from and where it goes, with it's eyes closed.

Wow. You just advocated for full on Socialism, borderline Communism.

And of course shale oil is economical. At least to independently derived and technically disimilar processes have been established to extract oil-equivalent from the shale, and each process was priced at less than thirty dollars per barrel of extracted oil, in the late 1990's.

Tell me, can $30 per barrel compete with $2? Furthermore, shale requires cracking to seperate it from the heavy materials. That further increases price. Not to mention you have dispose of the separated materials. Again, that reduces profitability. And shale won't be available in any real serious amount to change the world market supply.

Only a fool thinks that a mom and pop can challenge a Walmart Supercenter.

Yawn.

So many people want to pretend the possible isn't just so they can continue to pursue their own impprobable dreams without competition.

Only a fool thinks that adding 50,000 barrels to daily supply of 85 million will cause prices to change.

Only a fool thinks that US oil won't be priced at international commodity market prices.

We ALREADY HAVE that.

Sure we do. :roll:

At least Chavez is letting the Venezualans USE their natural resources.

Except that Chavez uses oil as welfare. And because oil is one of the largest exports and makes up a disproportion share of the economy.

Learn something about oil before posting again.

And try respond to this part:

"You don't understand the issue. Several posts have detailed just how our reliance on oil supports national diametrically opposed to the US. Furthermore, other threads have discussed how drastically reducing US demand will essentially rip out the hearts of those economies, likely replacing them with US friendly regimes. Furthermore, your sheer ignorance as to how commodity markets work is obvious. Merely drilling more in the US does not equate to changing who has the power in the global exchange markets. US oil will be priced at the same level and the US simply lacks the capacity to ramp up production to change total supply in any meaningful way. Nor can the US do so in a way that is cheap enough to change the base line commodity prices. Shale oil is not $2 cost per barrel LSC out of Saudi Arabia."

 

[presluc]

Subsidies are a big part of it. National Security is another big part of it for me.

The fuel we use is a huge part of defense in my mind.

We are never going to be able to fully break from oil, at least not this lifetime. To many things (plastics for example) use it. HOWEVER, the LESS we become dependent on oil based things like gasoline then the more we can rely on our OWN reserves rather than other countries.

Being able to essentially manufacture and produce either our own energy or our own means of getting energy (for example, solar and wind products) means that we are self dependant as a country in regards to the means needed to power our lifestyle. This reduces the amount of international pressure that can be placed on us as well as removes a potential dangerous leveraging tool.

I would say that the goal should be that at least 50% of our oil consumption is coming from our own sources, with the vast majority of the other 50% coming from very friendly allies if possible. I also like some of the research going on in attmepts to create artificial means of producing oil (I had a good laugh at the bugs that were created that literally shat oil I believe).

"WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO FULLY BREAK FROM OIL AT LEAST NOT IN THIS LIFETIME"

I might be shocked at that statement except for one small detail.

I've heard it before in the 60's,the 70's {real popular}, the 80's, and the 90's and now.

Of course, they also had doubts about putting computers in public circles..
The word then was maybe someday ect.
Yet here we are.

Now people can make statements about "not in our lifetimes" all they wish, but sooner or later it is not "our lifetimes" to deal with.
It is the lifetime of fossile fuel or oil.

Fact; the world is useing up oil and fossile fuel faster than it can be
replinished.

If China keeps progressing there are going to be more oil and fossile fuel going out and nothing coming in except the dream of alternitive fuel, "maybe ,someday."
However haveing an alternitive energy source to oil is not a fantasy it's a fact.
The longer America waits the longer Americans keep passing the buck to the next generation who will probably say well "not in our lifetime".
Sooner or ater somebody's going to have to say "NOW".

 

[sam_w]

You are allowed to buy your petroleum products from whatever country you want, just don't force me to do so.

What national security problem are you scared of? Is everyone going to just stop selling us oil? Nonsense. If one country refuses to, that decreases supply available to us, the price rises temporarily, another country sells more oil to us because the price is higher to us.

You obviously did not live through the 1970s oil embargoes, you should watch a History channel documentary sometime. But hey, freedom means standing in line for hours to fill up a tank at exploding prices then enjoy.

Wow.

Amazing.

All those posts.

The only options presented were "oh ****, we gotta import oil" and "replace oil with vegetables".

The US does have significant oil reserves.

We can build our own drills.

Not that hard.

So why are you all ignoring the obvious and rejecting domestic exploitation out of hand?

Don't bother to blather and say I don't understand the issues. We have sufficient liquid and shale reserves to last this country one hell of a long time. That's not subject to debate.

The question is why aren't you people even considering using those reserves.

Why is it wrong to discuss this? Well, because the Bull****tin' Frog lobby insists we all pretend it's not practical to do so. Which is manifestly untrue.

Do they just not teach math anymore? Let's see we have 3% of the oil reserves, yet we consume 25% of the oil drilled. Hmmmm.....damn never was good at math.

 

[phattonez]

You obviously did not live through the 1970s oil embargoes, you should watch a History channel documentary sometime. But hey, freedom means standing in line for hours to fill up a tank at exploding prices then enjoy.

That was due to price fixing. Thanks, try again.

Do they just not teach math anymore? Let's see we have 3% of the oil reserves, yet we consume 25% of the oil drilled. Hmmmm.....damn never was good at math.

Your conclusion is correct but your method is deeply flawed. You're not taking into account how much oil each reserve has. That's kind of important.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You obviously did not live through the 1970s oil embargoes, you should watch a History channel documentary sometime. But hey, freedom means standing in line for hours to fill up a tank at exploding prices then enjoy.


Do they just not teach math anymore? Let's see we have 3% of the oil reserves, yet we consume 25% of the oil drilled. Hmmmm.....damn never was good at math.

Yes, they teach math in engineering school.

If the US reserves are 3% of the world total, then the world has 83 trillion barrels of oil on hand.

Why is oil so expensive then, if your statement of 3% is valid?

My use of 2.5 trillion barrels for the US reserves is based on documented surveys.

 

[capitalistpig]

Many reasons. For one, it can reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. For another, it potentially conserves the environmental integrity of the planet. Both are integral to the security and prosperity of the nation. A third reason is that it creates a whole new industry, which could be beneficial for or detract from the employment rate, depending on how it all turns out.

People are only dependent on Middle Eastern oil because they choose to. It is the easiest choice, so many people choose it.

If it preserves the environment, certain fuels and additives should be banned all together.

The "new industry" idea is silly. Most people in the country choose to buy gasoline. Forcing them to buy other things cannot be positive. Fuel and energy will just be more expensive, which will be killing jobs.

 

[UtahBill]

OPEC is a cartel. Market forces are secondary to political concerns. If you recall in the 70's, we got embargoed by the middle east, and the damage to our country was great. Fact is, the U.S. has bad relations with many oil producing nations. Refusing to sell us oil is a political weapon that can be used against us, and it is quite effective. If Russia, the ME, and Venezuela all cut us of at once, we would be in serious trouble. Being free from such concerns would better safeguard our nation.

I am in favor of reducing our needs to at the least stop buying oil from our enemies, and even our friends if it means shipping it in from halfway around the world.....

 

[sam_w]

That was due to price fixing. Thanks, try again.



Your conclusion is correct but your method is deeply flawed. You're not taking into account how much oil each reserve has. That's kind of important.

So in other words, you have no clue about the 70s oil embargoes. It had NOTHING to do with price fixing, and everything to do with an embargo called for by Middle East oil producers angered over our support in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

The 1979 crisis was a direct result of the turmoil in Iran.

Oil is a dead energy for the future, pun intended. The next revolution will be a green revolution, and for all intents and purposes this is being led not by the U.S., but China, India, and others. The oil lovers are doing a might good job to insure that this nation will once again be on the wrong side of history.

 

[phattonez]

So in other words, you have no clue about the 70s oil embargoes. It had NOTHING to do with price fixing, and everything to do with an embargo called for by Middle East oil producers angered over our support in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

The 1979 crisis was a direct result of the turmoil in Iran.

Here's what YOU don't understand. Yes, there were embargoes. However, prices would have gone up had they been allowed to. There would have been no shortages. Instead, because of price fixing, there was only so much oil to go around and it had to be rationed via long lines. The response would have been much easier had price fixing not been there. Price fixing always has been and always will be a failure.

Oil is a dead energy for the future, pun intended. The next revolution will be a green revolution, and for all intents and purposes this is being led not by the U.S., but China, India, and others. The oil lovers are doing a might good job to insure that this nation will once again be on the wrong side of history.

:rofl Have you seen India or China? You think they're an example of being environmentally friendly compared to us?

 

[capitalistpig]

You obviously did not live through the 1970s oil embargoes, you should watch a History channel documentary sometime. But hey, freedom means standing in line for hours to fill up a tank at exploding prices then enjoy.


Do they just not teach math anymore? Let's see we have 3% of the oil reserves, yet we consume 25% of the oil drilled. Hmmmm.....damn never was good at math.

No, i was born in '94. But that was caused by price controls.

That other point you made is also silly. I eat a few pounds of food everyday, but I don't have a farm to make up for that. I produce other things (ie. labor) and sell them to people who want them in exchange for $$. I use that cash to buy food.

 

[sam_w]

Here's what YOU don't understand. Yes, there were embargoes. However, prices would have gone up had they been allowed to. There would have been no shortages. Instead, because of price fixing, there was only so much oil to go around and it had to be rationed via long lines. The response would have been much easier had price fixing not been there. Price fixing always has been and always will be a failure.

Well you obviously did not live through that period, I did. The "Energy" crisis of the 1970s was a DIRECT result of oil embargoes imposed by OPEC nations as a result of U.S. support for Israel. This is called history. Everyone alive then knew what the problem was, I would suggest you may wish to either question your source of history or seek out a credible one.

:rofl Have you seen India or China? You think they're an example of being environmentally friendly compared to us?

China has an active program for renewable energy and energy independence, one that is practical and achievable, something that the U.S. can not easily boast.

 

[thepyro222]

It's not a matter of alternative energies themselves, it's the FUNDING of alternative energies that the real issue is.

Republicans are big businessmen and most of them own oil companies, and they don't want to lose money to alternative energies. Many people ask "so why don't they invest in alternative energies?" Mainly because they see it as too much money spent on a risky situation. There really isn't a good system in place that I am aware of that lets us cheaply and efficiently produce alternative energies.

On the democrat side of things, global warming is caused by humanity burning oil carelessly, and we're going to destroy the Earth, and we need to shut down the "evil oil companies" that are "addicting" us to oil. The problem with what the democrat's are saying is that this whole global warming thing is a natural process of Earth, but there is no doubt in my mind that we are speeding it up, but only a little. I saw in an article (which I can not find the link to :doh that humanity really only causes about 10% of the greenhouse gasses.

 

[presluc]

I've read some interesting post on this thread, real interesting.

I have two questions.

1 How many Americans want to be dependant on the Middle East for energy and fuel?

2 Will this planet run out of oil yes or no???

 

[phattonez]

1 How many Americans want to be dependant on the Middle East for energy and fuel?

I don't mind it. What's so bad about it?

2 Will this planet run out of oil yes or no???

Yes, but not in the foreseeable future.

 

[sam_w]

I've read some interesting post on this thread, real interesting.

I have two questions.

1 How many Americans want to be dependant on the Middle East for energy and fuel?

The question is why would anyone want to be dependent on ANY non renewable source that is a pollutant. Some really need to go visit Los Angeles, New York, Mexico City, Paris, etc.. to see how enjoyable gas truly is.

I know this is a super rosy picture I will paint, but it is based upon real world scenarios we have now:
Think of an electric grid that is created by a mix of wind, solar, and natural gas. The renewable (solar/wind) lower the cost of both home, and now auto. Your auto drives 300 miles between "fills" (recharge). Cost per mile is $.01. as opposed to current $2.50+ gallon (now depending upon your gas mileage). If a full charge costs me $1.50 for 300 miles, yet I spend $25 in a fuel efficient vehicle to drive the same mileage...which is better now? I know I have the number off at the moment but our household spends over $4,000+ in gasoline per year (rough estimate). I don't know about others, but $4,000 is what my wife spent alone on visiting relatives. $4,000 is about what our last vacation cost. $4,000 would be one nice gift to someone.

2 Will this planet run out of oil yes or no???

Yes...and no. We have proven and unproven. But taking BOTH into consideration it is of course a given that oil is simply not by it's nature a renewable source. Well that is unless we can stop and wait a few million years. The emergence of economies such as India, Brazil, China, South Africa, etc.. means that oil prices are NOT going to go down. In fact we need to accept they will be going up as consumption rises exponentially.

FYI, take a look at this car: Tesla Model S. Take a look at it because this is the future. By 2015, 2020 nobody should expect any different. The question is not whether we should move to these renewable/green/alternative sources, but why not NOW? Sorry if I sound like too much of a nationalist here, but I want to see the U.S. lead this revolution, and right now it is not being lead. It is falling fast behind other nations. At this time in 2009 the technology is not exactly where we want it, or need it. But if a GM can produce a line of cars that would be everything this Tesla advertises itself as, is there any doubt that GM would have a strong advantage to other manufacturers? Problem is, it is companies like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan who are moving in the right direction (hence their expanding market base).

 

[presluc]

I don't mind it. What's so bad about it?



Yes, but not in the foreseeable future.

So that's 1 AMERICAN THAT DON'T MIND BEING DEPENDANT ON THE MIDDLE EAST FOR ENERGY AND FUEL, HOWEVER I DO MIND, I DON'T WANT MY COUNTRY TO BE DEPENDANT ON THE MIDDLE EAST.
Some may like doing the"sword dance " to get reasonable proces for energy I WOULD NOT.


So what do you consider the foreseeable future, your kids , your grand children , your graet grandchildren.
Cause some generation will have to deal with this some time.

Then it will no longer be a question of who minds or the foreseeable future, it will be a question of how and now.

 

[presluc]

The question is why would anyone want to be dependent on ANY non renewable source that is a pollutant. Some really need to go visit Los Angeles, New York, Mexico City, Paris, etc.. to see how enjoyable gas truly is.

I know this is a super rosy picture I will paint, but it is based upon real world scenarios we have now:
Think of an electric grid that is created by a mix of wind, solar, and natural gas. The renewable (solar/wind) lower the cost of both home, and now auto. Your auto drives 300 miles between "fills" (recharge). Cost per mile is $.01. as opposed to current $2.50+ gallon (now depending upon your gas mileage). If a full charge costs me $1.50 for 300 miles, yet I spend $25 in a fuel efficient vehicle to drive the same mileage...which is better now? I know I have the number off at the moment but our household spends over $4,000+ in gasoline per year (rough estimate). I don't know about others, but $4,000 is what my wife spent alone on visiting relatives. $4,000 is about what our last vacation cost. $4,000 would be one nice gift to someone.

Yes...and no. We have proven and unproven. But taking BOTH into consideration it is of course a given that oil is simply not by it's nature a renewable source. Well that is unless we can stop and wait a few million years. The emergence of economies such as India, Brazil, China, South Africa, etc.. means that oil prices are NOT going to go down. In fact we need to accept they will be going up as consumption rises exponentially.

FYI, take a look at this car: Tesla Model S. Take a look at it because this is the future. By 2015, 2020 nobody should expect any different. The question is not whether we should move to these renewable/green/alternative sources, but why not NOW? Sorry if I sound like too much of a nationalist here, but I want to see the U.S. lead this revolution, and right now it is not being lead. It is falling fast behind other nations. At this time in 2009 the technology is not exactly where we want it, or need it. But if a GM can produce a line of cars that would be everything this Tesla advertises itself as, is there any doubt that GM would have a strong advantage to other manufacturers? Problem is, it is companies like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan who are moving in the right direction (hence their expanding market base).

Sir, I agree with your post America should not be left in the catch up lane again, we had to play catch up on the space race after sputnik.
We had to play catch up with the Japanese on cars with more mpg after Toyota.
We should not have to play catch up on alternitive energy.

More than a few Americans have been asking for alternitive fuel since the late 60's, factory workers made suggestion after suggestion about more mpg cars.
They were overlooked then where is the American auto industry today?

Today more and more Americans are discussing alternitive fuel,green, hydrogen,electric, and others some I can not understand.,but at least more are interested.

Fact, this panet is using more fossil products than can ever be replinished.
Fact this can only mean one thing unless you are raising dinosaurs this planet will run out of fossil fuel {oil}.

It's kinda like having a silo of water if you use it without putting more water in you will run out of water wether it's a drop at a time or turned up all the way,

 

[phattonez]

So that's 1 AMERICAN THAT DON'T MIND BEING DEPENDANT ON THE MIDDLE EAST FOR ENERGY AND FUEL, HOWEVER I DO MIND, I DON'T WANT MY COUNTRY TO BE DEPENDANT ON THE MIDDLE EAST.
Some may like doing the"sword dance " to get reasonable proces for energy I WOULD NOT.


So what do you consider the foreseeable future, your kids , your grand children , your graet grandchildren.
Cause some generation will have to deal with this some time.

Then it will no longer be a question of who minds or the foreseeable future, it will be a question of how and now.

This is not supposed to be a mercantilist country. If we can't negotiate a good deal with the Saudis, we'll use our own expensive oil or our other plentiful fuel sources.

 

[obvious Child]

This is not supposed to be a mercantilist country. If we can't negotiate a good deal with the Saudis, we'll use our own expensive oil or our other plentiful fuel sources.

Pray tell, why should we not seek to abandon a system that enriches our enemies?

Or do you, like Scarecrow not understand commodity markets?

 

[phattonez]

Pray tell, why should we not seek to abandon a system that enriches our enemies?

Because if we don't mess with them, they won't be our enemies. No one would want to attack us if we didn't meddle first because who would want to tangle with this military?

It's our cheapest option right now, so we might as well buy it from them.

 

[sam_w]

Because if we don't mess with them, they won't be our enemies. No one would want to attack us if we didn't meddle first because who would want to tangle with this military?

It's our cheapest option right now, so we might as well buy it from them.

Have you not been reading? It is NOT our cheapest, it is the costliest. The only reason we use it is because of entrenchment. There a literally billions spent on unseen factors which your not even considering. The cost of the Iraq war alone is expected to be $3-5 trillion. We would not be there if not for the oil factor, by this I will simply argue that the topic of oil in the Middle East changes dramatically our entire approach to the region. The American Lung Association estimates an annual cost of $14-55 billion due to auto pollution.


Look at this from the same PDF:

In 2010, the United States will save a projected $1100 billion in health benefits (i.e.,avoided illness and death) associated with reductions in air pollution due to implementation of the federal Clean Air Act.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress: The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,
1990 to 2010. EPA-410-R-99-001, November 1999.
7 World Resource Institute. Health Effects of Air Pollution

 

[nkgupta80]

Have you not been reading? It is NOT our cheapest, it is the costliest. The only reason we use it is because of entrenchment. There a literally billions spent on unseen factors which your not even considering. The cost of the Iraq war alone is expected to be $3-5 trillion. We would not be there if not for the oil factor, by this I will simply argue that the topic of oil in the Middle East changes dramatically our entire approach to the region. The American Lung Association estimates an annual cost of $14-55 billion due to auto pollution.


Look at this from the same PDF:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress: The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act,
1990 to 2010. EPA-410-R-99-001, November 1999.
7 World Resource Institute. Health Effects of Air Pollution

Well once alternative energy becomes cost effective, that should be enough inertia to get the ball rolling. In fact, govt. policies should help to make sure that corporate institutions in the oil industries do not hinder the market process in weaning our dependence on oil. In other words we need to limit oil lobbies.

the reason it has become a political issue is because oil companies made it an issue. Having the usa (along with its military) back their business operations makes energy a political issue.