How to fix America, Part 4 --- ENERGY

http://greedybastards.com/#energy


Drill baby drill......ummmm No!

How about build baby build?

Build new fuel efficient cars, build insulation home upgrades, build new power generators, build a smart grid, build wind mills, build solar panels, build public transporation in metropolitan areas.

This is the path forward for our economy and our energy policy.

Energy is the single most pressing issue today outside corruption. It determines our trade deficit, our military bidget and engagements, and the general health of our economy.

Their is one proven path forward that doesn't require a 20 year tech jump, and that is efficiency!

Thoughts?

 

bump...

 

bump...

 

We should have more fracking.

 

More taxes! Not even remotely acceptable.

Do any of these drooling left-wing sites ever think of ANYTHING beyond taxes and regulations?

Take your taxes and go to blazes.

 

More taxes, and less corporate communism being funded by our current tax dollars. Sounds like a good plan to me.

You keep calling for your taxes to be lowered, while the remaining tax dollars you already pay goes to waste.

I will call for a tax increase that goes into the hands of the American people to fix this countries problems!

 

"Build new fuel efficient cars, build insulation home upgrades, build new power generators, build a smart grid, build wind mills, build solar panels, build public transporation in metropolitan areas."

Taxcutter says:
Same old drivel.

Cars are about as fuel efficient as they are likely to get until the EPA off their anti-diesel jihad.
Anybody with triple-digit IQ insulated his/her home years ago. I upgraded mine to R-19 fifteen years ago.
Building new power generation is stymied by EPA's New Source Review.
No way to smart grid. I don't want some bureaucrat turning off my A/C in the middle of the day.
Wind mills and solar panels don't work
Public transportation does not go where you want to when you want to go.

Don't you guys ever have any new ideas?

 

I would call for much, much lower spending and taxes and let the people work out the problems.

Beyond defense there is very little that government does better than a troop of baboons.

 

Do you question whether or not there is direct correlation between an increase in energy prices, and an increase in fuel efficiency?

- - - Updated - - -

Funny, they also seem to collect taxes pretty well, which is all they would have to do in this plan, as it puts money in the American people's hands, instead of corporate interests and the government who work together to screw the American people!

 

I agree with treating all energy sources the same, tax-wise. Also, drill baby drill. We have a fortune in wealth right below us. We should exploit those resources, create jobs and export fossil fuel products rather than import them from terrorist nations.

 

People have been working furiously at energy efficiency for forty years.

Everything practical has long since been done.

Eliminate the taxes and the only way the corporations get a dime is through voluntary transactions.

 

We use power generators all across this country that were built when Eisenhower was president.

WTF are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

I would agree with this if we pulled oursleves off the oil exchange once we became energy independant. If not, we will just be putting oil on the market that China or anyone else can buy.

 

I don't have a problem giving tax breaks to clean energy and not dirty energy. Dirty energy is dirty. Clean energy is not.

 

"We use power generators all across this country that were built when Eisenhower was president."

Taxcutter says:
Yes we do. Those generators are sixty years old. That's double design service life. They stay in service because New Source Review (40 CFR 52.21) makes them impossible to replace.

 

How does 40 CFR 52.21 prevent us from replacing the power generators that all the countries that are twice as energy efficient as we are use?

- - - Updated - - -

There you go, lets get rid of one kind of cronysim for another.

How about we tax all energies equally so the best market solution can arise?

 

I have always liked that idea, an isolationist strategy when it comes to energy. Why not have our own energy market? As a compromise, I'd even be fine saying hey let's tax every barrel of oil of MCF of gas at a certain rate to fund alternative energy research- assuming it was legitimately spent on such. That isn't to say I support that kind of subsidy- I don't. I am merely observing the political realities.

I'm certainly no economist nor energy expert, but I'd love to hear from someone well-versed on these issue why we couldn't simply create our own domestic energy market.

 

For some reason energy independence does not seem like a particularly desirable goal to me.

Anyway, I reckon the subsidies and special tax stipulations should be stripped away and all energy producers presented with a pollution tax which varies depending on how much of what kinds of energy resources a company produces, thus ensuring the externality of environmental degradation begins to be factored into cost-benefit analyses by firms, investors, and also the consumers who will ultimately get forwarded those expenses. Let the EPA sort out what the rates should be.

From there, nationalize the nuclear sector. Streamline the regulatory process for nuclear plants by sticking to a single reactor design to build over and over again rather than having each power station use a new layout and set of plans - something that unfortunately causes discouraging, burdensome experiences with bureaucracy and red tape today. Make the state nuclear company compete with private firms providing other forms of energy rather than having a steady, direct supply of taxpayer money. Yet allow this company to take out interest-free loans from the government. Nuclear power stations are extremely capital-intensive to build and have a relatively low fuel cost, meaning that most of the costs from the plan will be up-front and gradually get payed off over the course of many years (i.e. one has to be patient to profit from it), which I suspect makes nuclear energy seem unattractively risky to private investors regardless of its efficiency.

Privatization of that industry should occur at some point down the line if/when the use of thorium in reactors makes it impossible for meltdowns to occur - greatly diminishing the overall public interest in having nuclear energy so rigorously regulated for the sake of safety. In the meanwhile this *might* be a rare example of a government-run industry being more efficient than if left in private hands. Then again, I am sure a lot of folks will disagree. Any alternatives ya'll have would be interesting to consider.

I also think the government should be directly involved in financing basic research and making the results of its studies public domain for the benefit of firms and entrepreneurs. Corporations seem to be much better at taking marketable ideas and refining them than at mustering the will to generously back R&D projects that superficially show little or no promise for returns on investment in the first place. Firms and the state alike can have useful roles to fill in advancing national development. What I don't like is how firms can pass on many costs of dirty energy to society while the state tries to pick favorites in the market and use a myriad of complicated financial incentives to control consumer behavior.

 

You should read up on something called the petro-dollar.

 

"How does 40 CFR 52.21 prevent us from replacing the power generators that all the countries that are twice as energy efficient as we are use?"

Taxcutter says:
Not conversant with either New Source Review (40 CFR 52.21) or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, are you?

 

So you reject reality and substitute your own?

 

My reality is based on thirty-five years of regulatory policy and immutable laws of thermodynamics.

Ever heard of the Carnot cycle?

 

Why don't you just answer my question instead of responding in riddles?

If there is a law of Thermodynamics at play in why we can't upgrade to the same more efficient generators that recycle the lost heat from power generation, then just explain why, and how.

No need to play games here.

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics leads to the derivation of the "ideal" Carnot cycle. The thermodynamic efficuency of the Carnot cycle is 50%.

Stationary Rankine cycle generating stations average about 38% thermodynamic efficiency. To be "twice as efficient" would require a thermodynamic efficiency of 76%. Impossible.

Being ignorant of thermo, you have been gulled by a few scurrilous websites where they claim some European station have higher efficiencies. But this is counting use of the waste heat for district heating. In the US power plant are built far from urban centers so district heating makes no economic sense.

If you knew engineering fundamentals you would be led to making a fool of yourself by fly-by-night extremist websites.

 

Real simple quesation here Mr. Engineer.

Do US power generation facilities use this technology?




BTW, not sure in what sense of the word district heating you are referring to, but I'm not sure what that little box labeled district heating radiator has to do with having urban areas....LMAO!