Congressional Dems Refuse to Debate or Vote on New Energy for America by Former Author | Jul 25, 2008 | Uncategorized | 8 comments Posted by Former Author on 25 July, 2008 at 10:24 am. 8 comments already! [DELETED BY AUTHOR] 8 Comments Gregory Dittman on July 25, 2008 at 11:56 am Let’s go back to 1985 or so to see how politicans think. Fresh off major oil issues, gas becomes “cheaper.” Alternative energy plans are shelved because oil is much cheaper than any alternative energy plan. No nukes, no major solar plan, no wind farms and instead there was just oil to solve all the U.S. energy needs. So what will happen if the U.S. does drill? Oil will probably get cheaper and then once again alternative energy plans will be shelved because they aren’t cost effective at the time and 12 years from now the oil prices will go back up, but then there would be no new oil to drill and once again the U.S. will be talking about alternative energy. So what politican is to blame for problems that could have been solved 23 years ago? Definitely the majority of them. Red states could have put up nuclear plants, wind farms and put out a bunch of solar panels. Montana could have made the plants to turn coal to gasoline. Blue states could have done the same thing. Instead the issue was put off for for others to solve. Reply stix1972 on July 25, 2008 at 1:06 pm So we just pay higher and higher in gas prices while the magical alternative energyjust appears out of no where. Good plan. Destroy the economy in hopes that the magiacal a,ternative fairycomes down and bestows us with alternative fuels while the economy just goes farther and farther down. Great plan you got there. So let’s just use Norway’s plan and screw the poor and middle class and make driving a luxory. Then we canall suck off the govenrment for our little crumbs so wecan all getby. Excellent idea Reply MataHarley on July 25, 2008 at 1:16 pm Come on now, Stix… they *do* have “a plan”… “Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’ ” said a Democratic aide. Reply VR4 on July 25, 2008 at 1:53 pm As one walks through the rain to a safety of the indoors, they are usually carrying an umbrella: It would be somewhat stupid to get all wet on the way. We need a strong economy till we get to all of these great alternatives. We can’t have a strong economy when all of our transportation is crippled by the high energy prices. This effects not only the price of our commute, but anything that’s depended on transport. That would practically be everything. A policy of undressing us and dumping us in the middle of Siberia so that would make us think of building a more heat efficient house is ludicrous. I guess its the: if it doesn’t kill you it makes you stronger policy. The only problem is dems are playing with millions of people lifes, none of them their own. Reply Wearyman on July 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm Gregory Dittman, Your logic is flawed, and you are skipping over several very important facts. 1) Despite cheap gas prices, R&D into alternative fuel sources were indeed being developed. Unfortunately, alternatives like Wind and Solar were (and are still) immature technologies not yet ready for mass deployment. 2) The PRIMARY reason that more Nuclear was not deployed in the 1980’s was the environmental lobby and Liberal Democrat politicians. Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular WANTED more nuclear power, but Liberals in Congress and in the government bureaucracy stymied and thwarted them at every turn. Even now, of the two Presidential candidates, ONLY THE REPUBLICAN, wants expanded Nuclear power capability. Trying to blame the lack of nuclear power on cheap gasoline prices is a strawman, and makes about as much sense as blaming the price of pork bellies on sunspots. The two are not related. 3) Most alternative FUEL options cannot supply our immediate consumer energy needs like simply going out and drilling for more of the readily available oil. Electric cars, while impressive, are still exorbitantly expensive toys for rich Hollywood leftist types (Example; the Tesla roadster, the ONLY non-golf-cart-sized fully road-worthy all-electric automobile in production, will have a production run of less than 100,000 units, and will cost in excess of $100,000.00 each.) Corn Ethanol and Bio-diesel, while excellent for small-scale use, simply do not and cannot scale up to fully meet American demand, let alone worldwide demand. Sorry, we will not be “growing” our way out of Oil use. 4) All of the options you suggest (With the single exception of Nuclear; Again, NOT supported by leftists, enviros and Democrats!) are simply INCAPABLE of supplying proper baseline power for our energy needs, even IF we could all magically afford to buy all-electric cars. There just aren’t enough places with consistent sunshine or consistent winds (or people willing to let you build a massive and ugly solar or wind farm nearby) to provide enough power. Nuclear MUST be an option, BUT it will take at least several decades to fully “tool-up” into a nuclear economy. Of course, none of the estimates on power PLANT changes to Nuclear even account for the ridiculous inadequacies of our powerGRID. The American powergrid is currently incapable of supplying the power needs of a nation of Electric car drivers. 5) Even if all of the above mentioned issues were not true, we would STILL need to drill for Oil. Why? Because Petroleum-based products are everywhere in our society, and the more hi-tech we become, the more oil we need. I realize that you are skeptical, but trust me, I can remove your skepticism with a single word. What is that word? PLASTIC. Plastic is everywhere and in everything. From your car, to your house, to the grocery store, it’s everywhere. Heck, Modern medicine DEPENDS on petroleum-based plastic products. Without sterile plastic packaging, medical equipment, medical waste containers, etc. Modern medicine as we know it today simply could not exist. We MUST have oil, if not to fuel our cars, then to construct all the tools that make up a modern society. It’s inevitable, we have to have it. Cheaper gasoline is just a very nice byproduct of the necessary drilling, and a wonderful stopgap measure while we continue to develop alternative energy options and upgrade our powergrid to handle the needs of the future. One last point, and then I’m done. Have you ever asked yourself WHO the largest investors and researchers into alternative energy sources are? I can tell you who. It’s not governements, it’s not universities, and it’s not private citizens. By far and away, the largest investors in, and researchers of Alternative energy sources are: Big Oil. They aren’t stupid. They want to be part of the future, and they have been investing in alternative energy for DECADES. So stuff the stupid “cheaper gas means no alternative energy” argument. It’s a strawman, which I have just burned to ash. Have a nice day! Reply Mike's America on July 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm Very correct Wearyman. We will continue to develop altnerative energy sources even if the price of gas goes down. And VR4 put it very well. How will we have the resources to transition to that alternative energy future if our economy hasn’t got the gas to get there? I’ve said this about a hundred times, so let’s make it a hundred and one: If we use the petroleum resources that are abundant in THIS country, we can take the tax and royalties on that supply and use it to fund the development and implementation of some alternative energy infrastructure. I can’t see any virtue at all in destroying the American economy and placing more financial hardship on the middle class through higher energy prices. Reply Gregory Dittman on July 25, 2008 at 10:36 pm Companies not the federal government are responsible for nuclear plants, plus solar and wind farms. They will only do it when there is money to be made. There hasn’t been a nuclear power plant built for over 30 years, not even in the “red” states. Even while Republicans and Democrats scream for more nuclear power, they turn around and say they just don’t want the power plants and nuclear waste in their back yard. It takes 5 to 7 years to build a power plant (not including permits) and so far there are 34 applications for permits even when the oil prices are high. Not only that, some nuclear power plants might be taken off line in 12 years as they are deemed too old and have to be rebuilt. Electric plants that work on oil may also be taken offline as oil would be too expensive. Even if the oil is drilled and used up in 12 years, there has to be a replacement and they are not going to come unless forced to. Reply Wearyman on July 27, 2008 at 6:56 am Gregory Dittman, Again, you are conveniently ignoring and/or skipping over several important facts. 1) Yes, while Nuclear power plants ARE put up by private companies, the process to get approval for a nuclear plant up and running is entirely a governmental process. The process is such a bureaucracy that it makes your average DMV look like a “service oriented” company. Add to that the fact that the EPA can shut down the whole process almost by fiat, and you have a situation where a private company is investing millions into a project which may not even be allowed to break ground. Not to mention the virulently opposed Environmentalist groups who bring lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit and an entire political party dedicated to stopping ANY nuclear project from getting off the ground. Trying to set up a Nuclear plant becomes a money wasting exercise in futility. No wonder no company has bothered trying, regardless of whether they would be building in a “red state” or not. 2) You completely gloss over the fact that up until VERY recently, Wind and Solar have been immature technologies, and not ready for deployment. You also conveniently ignore that fact that Wind and Solar will NEVER be anything more than a supplemental power source, INCAPABLE of providing baseline power. All this means that we have had more NatGas fired power plants built since 1999 than any other kind. It simply hasn’t been worthwhile to even TRY to build nuclear, it’s just too difficult due to factors totally unrelated to the price of Oil. Let me reiterate that: The fact that no Nuclear power plants have been built in the last 30 years IS IN NO WAY related to the price of oil! While High oil prices CAN be ONE impetus to build, it is, by far and away, the LEAST important factor when dealing with the costs and ROI in building a Nuke Plant. You can try and play that strawman all you want, but all it ultimately says is that you are living in an uninformed fantasy world, and your opinion is worth exactly nothing. I suggest you educate yourself somewhere OTHER than your favorite lefty/Enviro sites and join the rest of us in reality. Reply Submit a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment * Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.