Energy Discussion

[Treetop Flyer]

To expand upon that point, I would argue that over the last 60 years, if Democrats either run a candidate based on charisma (Kennedy - “ask not...”, B.Clinton - “I feel your pain”, Obama - “Hope and Change”) or effectively demonise the Republican candidate (Goldwater, Nixon, Trump), the Democrats win the election. If the Democrats run on “the issues”, the Democratic coalition is so broad, that it causes infighting and the Democrats lose the election.

Agreed. “Beto” O’Rourke came very close becoming a Senator for Texas even though his policy goals were overwhelmingly unpopular among Texans (“hell yes we’re coming for your guns”, ban fracking, open borders, etc). But he got glowing media coverage and Ted Cruz is lacking in charisma.

Biden came close to losing the election just by admitting in passing that he wants to end oil and gas production. Fortunately for him his forced support for whacko fringe issues and obviously shady business dealings were overshadowed by Trump’s unhinged personality over four years and especially in debate one.

 

[ABMD]

Agreed. “Beto” O’Rourke came very close becoming a Senator for Texas even though his policy goals were overwhelmingly unpopular among Texans (“hell yes we’re coming for your guns”, ban fracking, open borders, etc). But he got glowing media coverage and Ted Cruz is lacking in charisma.

Biden came close to losing the election just by admitting in passing that he wants to end oil and gas production. Fortunately for him his forced support for whacko fringe issues and obviously shady business dealings were overshadowed by Trump’s unhinged personality over four years and especially in debate one.

I would be directly impacted by that policy, but I firmly believe that isn't going to happen. The impact to the economy and to tens of millions of citizens who are directly/indirectly employed in that industry would far outweigh any benefit. Not to mention energy (and the incremental cost of switching sources) touches the lives of every person in this country and nat gas is cheap relative to alternatives and we have boatload of it.

 

[taxi1]

I would be directly impacted by that policy, but I firmly believe that isn't going to happen. The impact to the economy and to tens of millions of citizens who are directly/indirectly employed in that industry would far outweigh any benefit. Not to mention energy (and the incremental cost of switching sources) touches the lives of every person in this country and nat gas is cheap relative to alternatives and we have boatload of it.

This is thread drift, but I've always thought its a shame to just burn that stuff for energy. Better to use renewables to help convert it into something useful and lasting. Kind of like using wood as a construction material instead of a fuel.

The person who figures out something economically useful to do with coal, other than burning it, will never go hungry.

 

[nittany03]

This is thread drift, but I've always thought its a shame to just burn that stuff for energy. Better to use renewables to help convert it into something useful and lasting. Kind of like using wood as a construction material instead of a fuel.

Unpopular opinion in some circles: if you don't take nuclear power seriously or outright oppose it, then you don't take climate change seriously.

 

[Randy Daytona]

I would be directly impacted by that policy, but I firmly believe that isn't going to happen. The impact to the economy and to tens of millions of citizens who are directly/indirectly employed in that industry would far outweigh any benefit. Not to mention energy (and the incremental cost of switching sources) touches the lives of every person in this country and nat gas is cheap relative to alternatives and we have boatload of it.

Quick threadjack but what are you hearing about a major oil find in Namibia?

 

[ABMD]

Quick threadjack but what are you hearing about a major oil find in Namibia?

If proven, it could place Namibia in the top 20 oil producing countries and all the majors are moving in that direction

 

[Randy Daytona]

This is thread drift, but I've always thought its a shame to just burn that stuff for energy. Better to use renewables to help convert it into something useful and lasting. Kind of like using wood as a construction material instead of a fuel.

The person who figures out something economically useful to do with coal, other than burning it, will never go hungry.

ABMD can expound upon it more, but the US has the lowest electricity rates (California excepted) in the industrialized world due to the glut of natural gas. Also, because natural gas is so cheap here, it is my understanding that a large portion of the stateside petrochemical industry has switched from using petroleum as a feedstock to natural gas, again giving the US another competitive advantage.

I would be directly impacted by that policy, but I firmly believe that isn't going to happen. The impact to the economy and to tens of millions of citizens who are directly/indirectly employed in that industry would far outweigh any benefit. Not to mention energy (and the incremental cost of switching sources) touches the lives of every person in this country and nat gas is cheap relative to alternatives and we have boatload of it.

I am not so sure. The plan of action seems to go after the pipelines making the movement of energy more difficult, renewable energy mandates forcing utilities to forego cheap natural gas and even outright banning the installation of gas for heating and cooking in new construction.

 

[Hair Warrior]

This is thread drift, but I've always thought its a shame to just burn that stuff for energy. Better to use renewables to help convert it into something useful and lasting. Kind of like using wood as a construction material instead of a fuel.

The person who figures out something economically useful to do with coal, other than burning it, will never go hungry.

ABMD can expound upon it more, but the US has the lowest electricity rates (California excepted) in the industrialized world due to the glut of natural gas. Also, because natural gas is so cheap here, it is my understanding that a large portion of the stateside petrochemical industry has switched from using petroleum as a feedstock to natural gas, again giving the US another competitive advantage.

Taxi, would it change your mind to know that, in the early days of kerosene (the Standard Oil era) the manufacturers just wantonly burned a hazardous waste byproduct of the manufacturing process to get rid of it? That waste byproduct was called: gasoline. And for decades, the petroleum industry burned nat gas as a hazardous waste byproduct - until they found better, cost effective ways to use it. Basically, they burned it for zero energy output bc all the heat and light just went up into the air. So the fact that we now burn it for actual energy consumption is much cleaner than before.

Also, I don’t know who in the industrial sector needs to hear this, but if something gives off light and heat when you burn it, and you’re ever just burning a substance like that to get rid of it, you should probably develop a generator to turn that light/heat back into electricity.

 

[Griz882]

ABMD can expound upon it more, but the US has the lowest electricity rates (California excepted) in the industrialized world due to the glut of natural gas. Also, because natural gas is so cheap here, it is my understanding that a large portion of the stateside petrochemical industry has switched from using petroleum as a feedstock to natural gas, again giving the US another competitive advantage.



I am not so sure. The plan of action seems to go after the pipelines making the movement of energy more difficult, renewable energy mandates forcing utilities to forego cheap natural gas and even outright banning the installation of gas for heating and cooking in new construction.

Mods...I like the focus of this discussion and would love to join in but I am hesitant to talk about critical issues like energy when we are supposed to be concentrating on yelling at each other. ? Could we move it?

 

[taxi1]

would it change your mind...

NO NEVER

Uhh... What were you saying?

I'm with you on grabbing energy where it is being wasted.

 

[Hair Warrior]

NO NEVER

Uhh... What were you saying?

I'm with you on grabbing energy where it is being wasted.

And before people used kerosene to light their homes they used.... whale oil.

I am slightly less concerned with the environmental impacts of fracking, offshore drilling, nat gas, etc. for two reasons:

1) energy independence - no more foreign wars for oil, and reduced revenue to foreign oil producers like Iran, KSA, Russia, Venezuela.

2) the West seems to be just fine moving toward hybrids, electric cars, solar roofing, etc. anyway, without legislation. I am seeing more and more solar roofing in my area. I can’t wait for the Tesla XL home batteries to get cheaper and more accessible (i.e. at Home Depot, Walmart, Costco).

I still dislike oil spills and fracking-related geologic issues, but I also love cheap petrochemicals that are “made-in-USA/CAN” - so I see both sides.

 

[Brett327]

Mods...I like the focus of this discussion and would love to join in but I am hesitant to talk about critical issues like energy when we are supposed to be concentrating on yelling at each other. ? Could we move it?

Your wish is my command.

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Unpopular opinion in some circles: if you don't take nuclear power seriously or outright oppose it, then you don't take climate change seriously.

If the general population really understood nuclear power generation they would realize it is a good source of energy, but instead that discussion is squashed constantly.

 

[Griz882]

If the general population really understood nuclear power generation they would realize it is a good source of energy, but instead that discussion is squashed constantly.

Glad this three was moved!

I agree with the folk who mention that nuclear energy must be part of a cleaner energy future. I don’t believe the technological capacity to collect, move, and store passive energies is available...by a long shot. California is already suffering under their self-made stupidity and it will only get worse. Solar, wind, geo-thermal, and ocean current energy have a bright place in our future but they simply can’t provide the power needed to support us.

 

[SlickAg]

I think a lot of people’s knowledge of nuclear energy comes from either The Simpsons or The China Syndrome. And, of course, Chernobyl for the newer generation.

Haven’t watched Chernobyl but the first two certainly don’t portray it in a flattering light.