New Energey Sec. is very fanatical

[Duty Honor Country]

Yesterday the President Elect nominated Steven Chu to be the new energy secretary. The main stream media said nothing more than he won the Nobel Peace Prize and he supports alternative fuel technology. His support of alternative fuel tech is too fanatical in my opinion

1. He wants to raise the fuel tax until our fuel prices are like those of Europe. "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." He wants these higher prices to "coax" people into buying green vehicles. Nice to have higher prices in a recession.

2. He calls coal a nightmare. I find it funny that environmentalists trash the work horses of our society. Coal produces more energy than every other form of energy producing tech in this nation. Take away coal and I would not be typing here on the forums. Take away those evil cars and our economy fails.

3. He wants carbon rationing and higher electric prices. Chu thinks electric prices in this country are too low. Tell that to cash strapped Americans. Carbon rationing at the national level would do much to raise energy prices while doing it on a global scale would be a free check to Africa and other poor nations.

Don't get me wrong, I like green technology. Apply green technology to a free market and I will support it. We all know that most hybrids are not worth it ie they cost you more than the gas you will save. Make green tech worth it and I will buy it. I hate the fact that environmentalists bash current energy (ie oil and coal) but as of now there is no green technology that can meet the energy needs of this country. The President Elect was quick to say no to new gas taxes. I hope he can control those under him. Oh yeah, it is no surpise that Chu hails from Burkley.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122904040307499791.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

it is interesting to note that the article says that most of the energy department's R&D is tied up due to congessional earmarks. Tell me government is the answer

 

[A Can of Man]

Hopefully everyone else will realize that he's a moron and will get him sh*t canned in no time. Of course he'll appear on some talk show and say it's got to do with race. Yeah right.
The guy is a religious fanatic. (see Environmentalism as a religion)

 

[HokieMSG]

I think Dennis Miller said it best.

"The greatest thing about America is our innovation. America won;t worry, really worry about alternative fuels until we run out of oil. When that happens we will develop something to replace it. We always do. So if you want to support alternative fuels, do what I do. Drive an SUV."

Europeans pay $4.00 or more for gas and their diesel prices are about $10.00 per gallon. Wonder what that will do to food prices here?

I would like to know what the Energy Sec plans to do when people on limited budgets, (I mean retirees) start freezing to death?

I agree that free markets are the way to do it. We already pay TOO much in energy taxes and gas taxes and more taxes are NOT the answer.

 

[The Other Guy]

I see nothing wrong with the first two points.

1-That will force people to go green. You say that like it's a horrible thing; it eliminates dependence on foreign oil.

2-Who says the future is in coal? The companies have already had to change mining strategies in order to get at the coal that is left because they can't find it anymore. Switch over to other sources; Nuclear, if you must, or solar energy.

3-not sure I follow this one.

Hokie:
But what happens in between the time when oil runs out and alternatives are created? How can we find an alternative when we have no oil to run our power plants or make our plastics or lubricate our machinery?

Typical American Short-Sightedness. Dennis Miller is such a spineless weasel.

 

[MontyB]

The problem is not in encouraging "green alternatives" it is in the way he wants to do it, the best option is to add incentives for people to purchase green alternatives not just destroy any other options.

As far as coal goes I believe the government should set a series of standards for power plant emissions and leave it at that, if coal fired power plants can meet those levels then I can see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to build them.

 

[Chukpike]

As far as coal goes I believe the government should set a series of standards for power plant emissions and leave it at that, if coal fired power plants can meet those levels then I can see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to build them.

They all ready have and even the newest and most efficient coal power plants barely meet the standards. The So Cal Edison plant located in Laughlin, Nevada closed about two years ago, because the exhaust was killing forest areas near Flagstaff, AZ. This plant used low sulphur coal from New Mexico.

Eastern state coal plants normally get their coal from mines in the east which have high sulphur contents.

For the record:
"The United States has the world's largest known coal reserves, about 263.8 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last approximately 225 years at today's level of use."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/non-renewable/coal.html

I would like to see more renewable energy sources used, but the same people the want green can also be its worst enemy.

Hydroelectric. Not good requires damning rivers damaging fish habitat or wilderness habit. Not aware of any new hydroelectric damns being built or planned in the United States.

Wind power. considered unsightly in areas, kills birds and bats. I think they look cool.

Solar. The amount of area it takes to generate a power plant type outputs. Number of hours a day that can generate.
Even roof solar power from a home. Example one person installed and expensive roof system only to have his neighbor plant trees that block his sun. They are currently suing each other.

Nuclear Power. I served 4 years on a nuclear power ship and don't have any exception to it, other than trying to sleep a night because of the glow I radiate. (just kidding) Main problem is still the waste. It is very safe. Leaves no carbon signature. But to many bad movies have been made.

Bottom line is no matter what, compromises will have to be made. Those take time and judging from what has been accomplished since the first "oil shortages" back in the 1970's, little will happen until the oil is gone and we use coal as a quick fix for the next hundred years.

I consider myself as a pro environment person. I have hiked a long the John Muir trail visited state and national parks all over the US and want them preserved. I go fishing in the Sierras every year. I would like exploration and development to preserve the environment as best it can be, but it is time the environmental evangelists to get their heads out of their *sses and compromise.

 

[MontyB]

I don't disagree with anything you have said but rather than putting a blanket ban on coal fired power stations I think it best to set a standard emissions target that applies to any generator and let the market and technology determine what can and can't be built within those limits.

What worries me about this "coal is bad" mentality is that while currently coal is bad there is nothing to say that further research will not make it acceptable yet if we persist in demonising the coal industry (or any other currently environmentally unfriendly process) research into improving our ability to clean it up will stop.

 

[The Other Guy]

The problem is not in encouraging "green alternatives" it is in the way he wants to do it, the best option is to add incentives for people to purchase green alternatives not just destroy any other options.

As far as coal goes I believe the government should set a series of standards for power plant emissions and leave it at that, if coal fired power plants can meet those levels then I can see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to build them.

You haven't seen what strip mining has done to the Appalachian Mountains.

When it's done all they leave is flat treeless terrain that doesn't drain and floods out areas downstream.

 

[Chukpike]

I don't disagree with anything you have said but rather than putting a blanket ban on coal fired power stations I think it best to set a standard emissions target that applies to any generator and let the market and technology determine what can and can't be built within those limits.

What worries me about this "coal is bad" mentality is that while currently coal is bad there is nothing to say that further research will not make it acceptable yet if we persist in demonising the coal industry (or any other currently environmentally unfriendly process) research into improving our ability to clean it up will stop.

I guess I was not clear on coal, because I agree with you. The problem is more that the environmentalists have the ear of government and the bar for coal plants makes it expensive to use. Right now outside of Kansas City a new coal plant is still trying to get on line after meeting all the standards that were set to build it.
Bottom line if environmental restrictions make it unprofitable companies are not going to build them. Environmentalists sue to run up the costs and make companies unpopular to investors.

These are the same people that scream if the power goes out and they can't use their computers to email their congressmen.

There is nothing wrong with being environmentally aware, just being fanatical about it.

 

[MontyB]

You haven't seen what strip mining has done to the Appalachian Mountains.

When it's done all they leave is flat treeless terrain that doesn't drain and floods out areas downstream.

So you do what most places do these days and limit operational site area so if they want to strip mine an area they have return depleted sections to original condition before they can open up new areas, it has worked extremely well with groups such as the forestry industry locally.

There is no doubt it will cost more initially but in the long run clever industries will learn to minimise that cost and in some industries (such as forestry) they can turn a profit on the process through renewable planting.

I guess I was not clear on coal, because I agree with you. The problem is more that the environmentalists have the ear of government and the bar for coal plants makes it expensive to use. Right now outside of Kansas City a new coal plant is still trying to get on line after meeting all the standards that were set to build it.
Bottom line if environmental restrictions make it unprofitable companies are not going to build them. Environmentalists sue to run up the costs and make companies unpopular to investors.

These are the same people that scream if the power goes out and they can't use their computers to email their congressmen.

There is nothing wrong with being environmentally aware, just being fanatical about it.

I agree, the key to this process is to make changes that are economically acceptable to all and that means that the extremists at both ends of the process need to be marginalised.

I think most people understand that we have to make changes if not for the environments sake then for our own it is just a matter of finding the balance.

 

[The Other Guy]

So you do what most places do these days and limit operational site area so if they want to strip mine an area they have return depleted sections to original condition before they can open up new areas, it has worked extremely well with groups such as the forestry industry locally.

There is no doubt it will cost more initially but in the long run clever industries will learn to minimise that cost and in some industries (such as forestry) they can turn a profit on the process through renewable planting.

But that's beside the point; they're destroying some of the oldest and most beautiful mountain areas in North America.

 

[MontyB]

But that's beside the point; they're destroying some of the oldest and most beautiful mountain areas in North America.

It is not beside the point as the damage can be managed and repaired, certainly if you are talking wiping out species I may be inclined to say its not worth it but like it or not trees, rocks and dirt are not all that unique and can be replaced.

I am not one to get sentimental about pretty views and wooded areas which if you recall are bear toilets, I wont argue that strip mining is ugly and an eyesore but then so is the mother in law and I am reliably informed it can be fixed.

 

[HokieMSG]

It is not beside the point as the damage can be managed and repaired, certainly if you are talking wiping out species I may be inclined to say its not worth it but like it or not trees, rocks and dirt are not all that unique and can be replaced.

I am not one to get sentimental about pretty views and wooded areas which if you recall are bear toilets, I wont argue that strip mining is ugly and an eyesore but then so is the mother in law and I am reliably informed it can be fixed.

Monty, Thanks for that laugh.

I think that the environmental extremists are the ones to be feared. Generally they are the ones pushing the return to a nomadic existence. I agree that we should expect companies to limit their impact on the environment as much as reasonable possible, but the green groups HAVE to compromise.
Maybe we can dress them up in wool sweaters and give them balloons to rub on their heads. Course if they are not careful and a spark is created, they will have to pay for the ozone they just created.

 

[A Can of Man]

Like I said, environmental fanatics are religous fanatics. Impossible to reason with.

 

[mmarsh]

I actually agree with point 1+2.

1. Low gas prices kill innovation to find better alternatives, and it encourages people to drive which it turn makes the USA dependent on Foreign oil and ruins the economy.

2. Coal is a dead end technology. Dirty, polluting, dangerous to mine, and provides less watts than a nuclear power plant which is a much better option.

 

[HokieMSG]

I actually agree with point 1+2.

1. Low gas prices kill innovation to find better alternatives, and it encourages people to drive which it turn makes the USA dependent on Foreign oil and ruins the economy.

2. Coal is a dead end technology. Dirty, polluting, dangerous to mine, and provides less watts than a nuclear power plant which is a much better option.

The environmentalist wackos don't want
nuclear (3 mile island),
coal (dirty and inefficient),
oil (dirty and controlled by the evil corporations),
wind (eyesore),
solar (take up too much space) or
hydroelectric (we must protect the salmon).
They are unwilling, as 13th redneck has already pointed out, unwilling to negotiate. They want to crow about the "problems" but have no ideas or solutions.

 

[mmarsh]

The environmentalist wackos don't want
nuclear (3 mile island),
coal (dirty and inefficient),
oil (dirty and controlled by the evil corporations),
wind (eyesore),
solar (take up too much space) or
hydroelectric (we must protect the salmon).
They are unwilling, as 13th redneck has already pointed out, unwilling to negotiate. They want to crow about the "problems" but have no ideas or solutions.

That Depends on the enviromentalist, not all are so radical in fact most aren't. For example many have begun to change their minds about nuclear.

The two largest accidents 3 mile Isle and Chernobyl were done in very poorly designed plants. The French have pioneered Nuclear powered technology, and almost all of its power is nuclear. Frankly if we were to borrow some of their expertise it would go along way to solve our own powergrid problems. If its done correctly and safely, then nuclear power is a viable option, if you cut corners thats when accidents happen.

They do offer some ideas, And they do promote some ideas hybrid/electrical cars was a enviromentalist idea. Biofuel is another idea.

Rememebr the powerful oil industry lobby wants to delay alternative energy for as long as possible (for reasons you can guess), so because they say this or that is ineffective to replace oil, doesnt necessarily mean it is.

Its about money and politics, not technology.

 

[HokieMSG]

Agree about money and politics. Definately the root of everything in this country at least.

As far as nuclear goes, I agree that since the French (shudder) have a lot more experise than just about everyone, we should use their help.

Chernobyl reactor tech is completely different than 3 mile island. Once reason that the US uses water moderation is that it is much easier to build and operate than the liquid sodium reactors that the russians use. Liquid sodium is more dangerous but cheaper to build. Add to that the fact that their technicians running the plant are likely less trained than US technicians.

The problem that the wackos have with nuke plants is waste. We currently just bury it in Yuma?. Need to come up with a better way to get rid of it. Send it to the moon or shoot it into the sun are some options.

 

[Chukpike]

:smile:

As far as nuclear goes, I agree that since the French (shudder) have a lot more experise than just about everyone, we should use their help.

Very unlikely any country in the world has more experience with nuclear reactors than the US. 70 years and probably more than 1,000 reactors. Nuclear powered subs, ships, power plants both in the US and foreign countries. Advances from experience of other countries could aid safety and would all be good. Problem is in sharing technology. Countries do not want more nuclear capable countries.

The problem that the wackos have with nuke plants is waste. We currently just bury it in Yuma?. Need to come up with a better way to get rid of it. Send it to the moon or shoot it into the sun are some options.

Of course this is not practical due to the fact that spent uranium is heavier than lead. And the tonnage of waste would make the number of rockets extreme and the likelihood of a rocket failing and the waste being spread all over the world. It would be the last part of a rocket to burn up on reentry. Encased in its radiation shield and that fact it is dense enough to probably not burn up in reentry.

People think of the waste as nuclear bombs being buried underground. This is not true but the illusion persists along with problems transporting it to a storage site. No one wants these "nuclear bombs" transported through their neighborhoods. It is radioactively dangerous for centuries.

Realisticly all forms of energy that the US posesses will be needed if the US wants to be energy independant. There is no short term fix.

The only short term relief would be people using less, and I am all for that, as long as it does not effect me .:smile:

 

[HokieMSG]

Chukpike. Thanks for the clarification. I was under the mistaken assumption that our nuclear expertise was geared more towards military reactors for ships/subs. I do understand that a lot has to happen to initiate a chain reaction. (Sufficient reaction mass, sufficient pressure) and that spend reactor fuel lacks the first and the pressures required for detonation are extreme.
I agree that the US has to do more to improve efficiency of what we use now. Traditionally the US answer to an energy shortage is to get more. Efficiency improvement will only get you so far and eventually we will need to develop better technology and build more plants. Maybe we need to spend more money on fusion research or superconductors.