Skip to main content

Real life situation. I've posted in the past that out power rates have quadrupled in the last few months. During peak hours now we are paying almost 6 times what we are accustomed to paying. Our power bill has gone up to the point that although we have plenty of orders we have resorted to laying off a entire shift and shutting the 24/7 operation down between noon and 8 p.m.

I don't understand the whole thing but I've been told the rates fluctuate in the morning from 5 cents a kilowatt hour to almost 30 cents midday.

I was also told these rate hikes would be hitting homeowners soon and that the extra expense was put off on manufacturing facilities first because the power company officials have to go before a board before residential rates can change.

A lot of people think this is just a gas crisis but this is a full blown energy crisis. We get most of our energy from coal and coal prices are through the roof. Something has to be done quickly or there won't be any manufacturing left in this country.

I'm all for solar power, wind power, cow farts, whatever but something has to be done between now and when these sources of energy really become viable.

I think McCain understands this but I don't think Obama does. What if anything in the following link is going to keep us in business long enough to see a 10-15 year plan come to fruition?

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Phoenix Rising:




I'm all for solar power, wind power, cow farts, whatever but something has to be done between now and when these sources of energy really become viable.


I would personally like to see an energy plan based upon cow farts as the primary fuel !

Let's get together and develop a business plan, maybe we could all become rich enough to be Republicans ! Big Grin
If you are in the Tennessee Valley, then rates do not yet change with time of day. I do feel that this is the direction things are headed, though. Time-of-use rates are put in place to encourage customers to move what load they can off of peak times (like late afternoon in the summer and early morning in the winter).

If the nutjob liberals and environmentalists don't quit protesting every reasonable energy source, then things are not ever going to get better. It's like their argument that drilling now will not help oil prices, so we shouldn't do it. They had that same philosophy years and years ago which is why we are where we are now. It's that same narrow-minded, instant-gratification-seeking attitude and logic that has resulted in our current energy problems that are and will continue slowing our economy. Also, while we are spending billions of dollars a year worrying about environmental concerns, our competition in China is polluting uncontrolled. Thus, we are not on an even playing field as a result of our own policies. America is crippling itself and then crying about it the whole way down.

Any successful energy policy is not going to fix anything tomorrow or the next day. Leadership is going to have to support long-term solutions for things to ever get better. We need to install punitive taxes on products from countries that are not acting as we do to reduce pollution, so we are all on an even playing field. We need to support new technologies and use grants and tax breaks to encourage companies to successfully develop and market reasonably priced alternatives to fossil fuels. We will never completely do away with fossil fuels (at least not in the reasonable future) so we need to allow full development and utilization of our own petroleum resources to further reduce our dependence on cheap foreign oil. We need to support nuclear power and give tax breaks and incentives to companies willing to build nuclear plants. The same should be done for wind, solar, etc.

Of course, Congress will likely just keep on with the same old, same old, and nothing will happen. That's how we got here isn't it? Sooner or later, maybe we will all get tired of allowing the liberals to keep forcing us to play this game with one hand tied behind our backs. Obama wants to reduce oil consumption in ten years by as much as we import from the Middle East and Venezuela, and I'm sure he'd be more than happy to put penalties on American industries that don't help meet that goal--which will just result in higher priced everything for the rest of us. We need long term solutions, not more of the same crap that's gotten us here.
Last edited by aubfire1
Aubfire, I would suggest that Obama is correct in desiring to use the power of the Federal Government to produce incentives that will ween us off of enough oil to replace oil imported from the middle east, and Venezuela. I think it would be great if we could cut all imports.
The problem , is not the environmentalist, but the right wing political party that decided to piss away the last 30 years of forming a real energy reduction policy because they were in the pockets of companies who profit from the sale of oil. They gave tax credits to those who bought only the biggest SUVs and promoted burning more and more gasoline, meaning we imported more and more oil.
BTW, I don't remember seeing ANY picture of President Clinton giving a big ole kiss to the Arab Oil sheiks or walking hand in hand with them.

You must be young, I remember in the 70's we were told that the Alaska pipeline would be our solution to energy independence from the Middle East. Well , it came on line , and all we did was use more oil. (BTW, that Alaska oil all went to Japan for quite a long time)
Paris Hilton's energy plan is a lot more well thought out than McCains and apparently yours.

In about 5 months we will replace a president who seems to love the people of Iraq and Oil Sheiks from the middle east more than he loves the people of our own country. I believe both candidates running actually will love this country more than Iraq, but there is one who wants to stay there 100 years, and continue to piss away billions of dollars per month there, and who has no discernible energy plan more than drill, drill , drill.
On the other hand we have a candidate who sees a larger, more long term vision. He would be willing to open up more land for drilling, but requiring the oil companies to actually drill on their leases or loose them. He would set about to help American Car companies to develop 100MPG cars, all that can use alcohol. Such is a plan, I personally can think of some more that could be done, but that is a helluva lot better plan than the former candidate's. That is a PLAN.
Drill more is a command to a private industry. This is a news flash for you- the United States Government is NOT in the drilling for oil business.
Rather than blame environmentalist, why not blame the oil companies for not drilling on leases they already have that already have been ok'd by everybody? I fail to understand that disconnect with the McCain camp, and with your post.
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
Government isn't the answer, unless NASA comes up with something. They need to get out of the way, eliminate taxes, and let motivated business take it from here.

The government has a role in protecting the citizens of the country.
Nuclear power (at least in the foreseeable future will almost have to be a large part of the mix of power.
The NRC should pick a few standardized plans for nuclear power plants, and if built to those standards, accept them. This would protect the populous and at the same time cut down on the enormous cost and time needed to build nuclear plants.
The government should also encourage the re-processing of nuclear fuel from spent fuel rods, and whatever remaining highly radioactive waste should be shipped to the national repository that we spent millions to build.
John McCain should quit opposing the waste dump, and accept it as part of the nuclear program he keeps harping on.
Both candidates appear to support nuclear power, McCain just lies about Obama's stand on the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
Aubfire, I would suggest that Obama is correct in desiring to use the power of the Federal Government to produce incentives that will ween us off of enough oil to replace oil imported from the middle east, and Venezuela. I think it would be great if we could cut all imports.
The problem , is not the environmentalist, but the right wing political party that decided to piss away the last 30 years of forming a real energy reduction policy because they were in the pockets of companies who profit from the sale of oil. They gave tax credits to those who bought only the biggest SUVs and promoted burning more and more gasoline, meaning we imported more and more oil.
BTW, I don't remember seeing ANY picture of President Clinton giving a big ole kiss to the Arab Oil sheiks or walking hand in hand with them.

You must be young, I remember in the 70's we were told that the Alaska pipeline would be our solution to energy independence from the Middle East. Well , it came on line , and all we did was use more oil. (BTW, that Alaska oil all went to Japan for quite a long time)
Paris Hilton's energy plan is a lot more well thought out than McCains and apparently yours.

In about 5 months we will replace a president who seems to love the people of Iraq and Oil Sheiks from the middle east more than he loves the people of our own country. I believe both candidates running actually will love this country more than Iraq, but there is one who wants to stay there 100 years, and continue to piss away billions of dollars per month there, and who has no discernible energy plan more than drill, drill , drill.
On the other hand we have a candidate who sees a larger, more long term vision. He would be willing to open up more land for drilling, but requiring the oil companies to actually drill on their leases or loose them. He would set about to help American Car companies to develop 100MPG cars, all that can use alcohol. Such is a plan, I personally can think of some more that could be done, but that is a helluva lot better plan than the former candidate's. That is a PLAN.
Drill more is a command to a private industry. This is a news flash for you- the United States Government is NOT in the drilling for oil business.
Rather than blame environmentalist, why not blame the oil companies for not drilling on leases they already have that already have been ok'd by everybody? I fail to understand that disconnect with the McCain camp, and with your post.


I'm sure either candidate is willing to use the power of the federal government to produce incentives to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is exactly what I said; not sure why you didn't get that, but you should read my post again. But just saying that we should be off of foreign oil in ten years, and actually having a plan to reach this goal are two different things. A realistic person wouldn't even believe it to be possible in just ten years. Place all the blame you want on Republicans (they are to blame too, as you said, for our continued dependence on cheap foreign oil), but I am personally sick and tired of some liberal nutjob tree-hugging democrat opposing anything that would even remotely help the energy situation. These people care more about the environment than about our quality of life.

I work in the power industry. Everytime any big company (gasp, they must be evil) attempts to build a nuclear plant the tree huggers come out in force to oppose it. These are not Republicans opposing such proactive plans. While you may support nuclear power and be a resasonable enough person to understand that it is absolutely necessary to our future, your liberal counterparts do not.

Republicans have tried for years to expand our domestic energy options from oil to nuclear. Democrats have opposed it every step of the way. Why will they not allow a vote on drilling now? Why do people like Obama keep referring back to the same old saying "it won't help anyway for at least 5 years or more?" What the h@ll does that have to do with anything? That seeking of instant-gratification, of something for nothing, is what has caused thousands of American families to lose their homes and to run up exhorbitant credit card debt. It's what causes a huge percentage of our population to sit idle and collect handouts from a government run by politicians who only care about what else they can hand out to buy votes and get reelected. And it is one part of what has caused this energy crisis.

Noone is asking the government to say "Drill more" to private industry. Republicans are asking the government to ALLOW drilling. If the government is not in the oil business, then why not let the people decide whether drilling should be allowed? Why block anything that even Obama knows is necessary?

You say Obama will help automakers build more efficient automobiles? I hardly think that having the government REQUIRE certain efficiency standards of domestic automakers could be called "helping" them. And if you don't think that is what the Dems will do, just sit back and continue being naive.

Anyway, if you read what I had to say, you'll find that what I said, what Paris said, what McCain said, and what Obama said is all just about the same thing. But I don't see anyone else opposing anything that could help except the Democrats....do you? Talk is cheap, I prefer looking at actions......enough said.
quote:
Originally posted by aubfire1:
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
r.


I'm sure either candidate is willing to use the power of the federal government to produce incentives to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
That is a plank in Obama's platform. That is exactly what I said; not sure why you didn't get that, but you should read my post again.
Sorry, lots of words you typed. But just saying that we should be off of foreign oil in ten years, and actually having a plan to reach this goal are two different things. A realistic person wouldn't even believe it to be possible in just ten years. I believe it is technically possible. Congress may not have the political will, and too many of the American people may not want to do what it will take though. Place all the blame you want on Republicans (they are to blame too, as you said, for our continued dependence on cheap foreign oil), but I am personally sick and tired of some liberal nutjob tree-hugging democrat opposing anything that would even remotely help the energy situation. These people care more about the environment than about our quality of life. Well, our environment is directly tied to our quality of life, but that aside, I am also sick of Republicans who refuse to allow tax credits to individuals who would , if helped with tax credits, contribute to our energy independence with solar water heaters, and solar and wind power plants on their own house and land. During the late 70's, there developed a large industry around people using solar water heaters. They were expensive, but there was enough tax credits given to make the cost of instillation competitive with gas or electric kind. The tax credits were wiped out with Reagan , and even though Clinton tried (not near hard enough IMHO) to reinstate them, to this day the Republicans have blocked the idea. BTW, this did away with the industry to a great extent, and hurt a lot of small business owners who made their living installing these things. Keep in mind that heating water is the 2nd largest energy cost of a home, ie a major factor in energy.

I work in the power industry. Every time any big company (gasp, they must be evil) attempts to build a nuclear plant the tree huggers come out in force to oppose it. These are not Republicans opposing such proactive plans.
While there is always somebody to oppose nearly everything , I don't think it is the "treehuggers" preventing the expansion of nuclear power. One of the major problems with nuclear power as it has been up 'till now is the tremendous cost associated with building a plant and getting it on-line. Historically , in this country, a major factor in that cost has been that every plant was built unique, therefore the NRC had no real standards as there was always a moving target on what was acceptable to them. This caused power companies to have to spend millions to keep tearing down today what they did yesterday in order to meet the changing requirements of the NRC. We should do what France did, standardize the construction requirements of nuclear plants, and if built to those standards, then license the plant for production. This would give power companies the ability to project the cost of building a plant, and have assurance that once they spend those millions of dollars, they can actually operate the plant. I have no idea why that was not done years ago, but I doubt if it is the fault of either Republicans or Democrats, and probably has nothing at all to do with tree huggers. This is more of an economic problem than an environmental one. On the other hand, there IS the problem of what to do with the nuclear waste. I read that TVA is now building a re-processing plant at Oak Ridge to reprocess their spent fuel rods. Great ! However, there is waste, both low level and high level that has got to be stored for thousands of years. Our government spent millions and millions of dollars to build a waste storage facility in Arizona. However, it has never been used to date, because of opposition to shipping the waste. I admit , much of that opposition comes from the environmental groups, but one senator has led the opposition to using the waste storage facility, and that senator is John McCain. All the problem ain't Democrats or environmentalist. While you may support nuclear power and be a resasonable enough person to understand that it is absolutely necessary to our future, your liberal counterparts do not.

Republicans have tried for years to expand our domestic energy options from oil to nuclear. Democrats have opposed it every step of the way. Why will they not allow a vote on drilling now?
The Democrats all support drilling now. In fact Obama has as a plank in his platform stated that if oil companies will not drill now on the leases they already have (about 79 million acres I believe) that they should loose those leases, and they will be awarded to somebody who will drill now. It is the oil companies who will not drill now, Congressional Democrats don't drill, our government dosn't drill, oil companies are supposed to drill but they aren't drilling. The Republicans have blamed the Democrats for not drilling, but that is a straw man. No vote necessary . Why do people like Obama keep referring back to the same old saying "it won't help anyway for at least 5 years or more?" What the h@ll does that have to do with anything? Well, the truth is that it really wouldn't help now. In fact, even if vast oil deposits are found and exploited, it wouldn't really help much on the price now (or the near future) . Just reality talk here, not political pandering and fantasy. One advantage though of increasing production (which I am not against) is that some of the money we spend at the pump would possibly not be used against us by Al Queda. Every time you fill up your car now, you are helping Al Queda.
That seeking of instant-gratification, of something for nothing, is what has caused thousands of American families to lose their homes and to run up exhorbitant credit card debt. It's what causes a huge percentage of our population to sit idle and collect handouts from a government run by politicians who only care about what else they can hand out to buy votes and get reelected. And it is one part of what has caused this energy crisis.
"Ask NOT what your country can do for you, instead ask 'What can I do for my country' " JFK

Noone is asking the government to say "Drill more" to private industry. Republicans are asking the government to ALLOW drilling. If the government is not in the oil business, then why not let the people decide whether drilling should be allowed? Why block anything that even Obama knows is necessary?
Once again, there is plenty of leases the oil companies can use, what good would a vote do ? This discussion on the national conversation is really just political pandering. If there was a vote to force Exxon to drill, I expect Democrats would be for that, even I would be for that.

You say Obama will help automakers build more efficient automobiles? I hardly think that having the government REQUIRE certain efficiency standards of domestic automakers could be called "helping" them. I think that by allocating money to the auto makers to (and if) they will develop a 100MPG car is the help he is suggesting. By having a national fleet of cars getting 100MPG is actually helping the people of this country, and isn't that what the government is supposed to do ? We have pissed away 30 years because of what you said about instant gratification of the people, and a congress sold out to the oil industry. It is time to make a change in that . Republicans don't want to allow the change. (they are more sold out to oil than the Democrats), and by definition , Conservative means "against change", but change we must, and although we should have started 30 years ago, now is the time we must get started. And if you don't think that is what the Dems will do, just sit back and continue being naive.

Anyway, if you read what I had to say, you'll find that what I said, what Paris said, what McCain said, and what Obama said is all just about the same thing. But I don't see anyone else opposing anything that could help except the Democrats....do you? Talk is cheap, I prefer looking at actions......enough said.
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
Enough domestic natural gas to last 118 years?

An ACSF and NIC study indicates enough U.S. natural gas supply for about 118 years, with Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake Energy CEO

I get excited when I see this kind of stuff, but where have these guys been and where the h3ll is the end user product???


Miami, I don't get anything but the little screen, no movie. May be just me, but I would like to watch anyway.
I believe we have a lot more energy in the form of natural gas than we do in oil (at least in North America) and there is a huge amount in Alaska waiting on a pipe line to be built to transport it.
One of the problems with NG is that it is an easy way for a power company to make electricity and keep their pollution down. It is also excellent for use in combustion turbines. Therefore, a LOT of NG gets used to make electrical power. Not altogether a bad thing, but that useage pushes the price even higher.
I have been checking out T. Boon Picken's proposal and I can see how , if implemented, it would have an great impact on our energy independence.
"The day that you tarry is the day that you loose" Song from the movie Jeremiah Johnson.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
Enough domestic natural gas to last 118 years?

An ACSF and NIC study indicates enough U.S. natural gas supply for about 118 years, with Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake Energy CEO

I get excited when I see this kind of stuff, but where have these guys been and where the h3ll is the end user product???


Miami, I don't get anything but the little screen, no movie. May be just me, but I would like to watch anyway.
I believe we have a lot more energy in the form of natural gas than we do in oil (at least in North America) and there is a huge amount in Alaska waiting on a pipe line to be built to transport it.
One of the problems with NG is that it is an easy way for a power company to make electricity and keep their pollution down. It is also excellent for use in combustion turbines. Therefore, a LOT of NG gets used to make electrical power. Not altogether a bad thing, but that useage pushes the price even higher.
I have been checking out T. Boon Picken's proposal and I can see how , if implemented, it would have an great impact on our energy independence.
"The day that you tarry is the day that you loose" Song from the movie Jeremiah Johnson.


ex, your adobe flash player is probably out of date.

Please choose your operating system and download latest update.

After it is installed, you should be able to watch this video and any other.

regards, miamizsun
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by miamizsun:
Enough domestic natural gas to last 118 years?

.


ex, your adobe flash player is probably out of date.

Please choose your operating system and download latest update.

After it is installed, you should be able to watch this video and any other.

regards, miamizsun


Thanks Miami, but when I went there, the required browser would be IE Explorer. I use Firefox because my Explorer kept crashing at lots of newspaper sites including TD.
Should I still try ?
Thanks, I am an old person not too hip to these new-fangled gadgets.
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
quote:
Originally posted by excelman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by miamizsun:
Enough domestic natural gas to last 118 years?

.


ex, your adobe flash player is probably out of date.

Please choose your operating system and download latest update.

After it is installed, you should be able to watch this video and any other.

regards, miamizsun


Thanks Miami, but when I went there, the required browser would be IE Explorer. I use Firefox because my Explorer kept crashing at lots of newspaper sites including TD.
Should I still try ?
Thanks, I am an old person not too hip to these new-fangled gadgets.


yes sir, you can get it for firefox as well. i like forefox, and use it quite often.

Adobe updates for Firefox. Enjoy.
Well Miami, it appears you can't get anything anymore for Win98, so I drug out my laptop and watched this. It is a very exciting broadcast.

T Boone has been on TV several times lately, it appears his main thrust is to get trucks and fleet vehicles on CNG.
I know converting a regular car with a carburetor to use CNG is very easy, and they can be used then with either gasoline of CNG, but I don't know what it would take to get the fuel injected cars to run on CNG. If it could be done easily, and if we had a distribution network , I would convert all my cars post haste.
Pickens also said on TV that something like 80 million (I believe that was the number) cars around the world run already on CNG, most in Europe and in South America. A Russian company is already putting a larger distribution network in Europe. Why are we so behind ? Could it be we have politician sold out to oil companies ?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×