Energy Policy
Dan is on hiatus this week and gives the floor to Justin.
(He will be back to discuss health care.)
Just when I thought Democrats were going to show some capacity for leadership, for economic prosperity, for new direction, for peace, etc; they go ahead and drop the nuclear weapon of economic destruction – tax increases. Oh, they buried it deep and they covered it good. See, they call it the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, and it never, ever, ever calls directly for a tax increase. It does extend the period of deduction for some expenses; it forces oil companies to renegotiate leases that have been on the books since 1998 and 1999 at higher rates; and it eliminates tax deductions for oil companies that are extended to all manufacturing companies.
As the US Chamber of Commerce states in their letter of opposition to this atrocious act of economic violence, “this act will further impede domestic oil and gas production.” When Congress gets involved in the economy by increasing the costs to companies and denying tax deductions it has two major impacts. First and foremost, the companies just pass the cost on to the people who buy the products – us! We will pay for the increased cost of oil and gas extraction and exploration with higher prices at the pump. Second, it creates an uneven economic playing field for US companies in the oil and gas marketplace. This serves to drive production overseas and away from the United States. We will depend more on foreign sources thanks to this poor legislation. And you global warming, earth loving types out there should be alarmed anytime we push oil production overseas – you think third world countries have the same anti-spill and drilling site cleanliness standards that the US does?
I am appalled at another confirmation that the Democrats either fail to understand the economy or they are turning deaf ears to the outcry of the American people for relief from high prices at the gas pump. They should start by trying to cut taxes on oil companies and encourage exploration and development of domestic sources. If we want to encourage long-term development of alternative sources for energy then so be it, but ill-conceived and poorly constructed legislation will provide neither short-term relief nor long-term solutions.
Let us begin our energy reform by realizing two key things.
One, the alternative fuel sources touted both by the left and by the President are still theoretical, not cost effective and closer to science fiction than solid policy. In his comments on ethanol production, the President might as well have called for 1 zillion barrels of ethanol, while placing his pinky next to his lips with a smirk, because ethanol experts reacted just like the table of world leaders in Austin Powers, “There isn’t 1 zillion barrels of ethanol in the whole world!” We can not grow enough corn to make enough ethanol to make a difference in our energy needs, at least not with current technology. It will take breakthroughs in the future and taxing our limited resources of today only squeezes consumers; it does not, as liberals erroneously believe, create vast pools of tax revenue from the bloated profits of oil companies with no economic consequences.
Two, if the United States wants a practical, cost-effective and tested method of generating more energy without burning fossil fuels, we should take a page from the Europeans and the Japanese. They have learned that strategic development of nuclear power can be clean, quiet and efficient. We are still plagued by the ghosts of our history where reactionary opinions against a fledgling technology and mass protests have seemingly left an indelible, negative impression. We must overcome this foolish prejudice and embrace the progressive and creative ideas of new technology.
(He will be back to discuss health care.)
Just when I thought Democrats were going to show some capacity for leadership, for economic prosperity, for new direction, for peace, etc; they go ahead and drop the nuclear weapon of economic destruction – tax increases. Oh, they buried it deep and they covered it good. See, they call it the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, and it never, ever, ever calls directly for a tax increase. It does extend the period of deduction for some expenses; it forces oil companies to renegotiate leases that have been on the books since 1998 and 1999 at higher rates; and it eliminates tax deductions for oil companies that are extended to all manufacturing companies.
As the US Chamber of Commerce states in their letter of opposition to this atrocious act of economic violence, “this act will further impede domestic oil and gas production.” When Congress gets involved in the economy by increasing the costs to companies and denying tax deductions it has two major impacts. First and foremost, the companies just pass the cost on to the people who buy the products – us! We will pay for the increased cost of oil and gas extraction and exploration with higher prices at the pump. Second, it creates an uneven economic playing field for US companies in the oil and gas marketplace. This serves to drive production overseas and away from the United States. We will depend more on foreign sources thanks to this poor legislation. And you global warming, earth loving types out there should be alarmed anytime we push oil production overseas – you think third world countries have the same anti-spill and drilling site cleanliness standards that the US does?
I am appalled at another confirmation that the Democrats either fail to understand the economy or they are turning deaf ears to the outcry of the American people for relief from high prices at the gas pump. They should start by trying to cut taxes on oil companies and encourage exploration and development of domestic sources. If we want to encourage long-term development of alternative sources for energy then so be it, but ill-conceived and poorly constructed legislation will provide neither short-term relief nor long-term solutions.
Let us begin our energy reform by realizing two key things.
One, the alternative fuel sources touted both by the left and by the President are still theoretical, not cost effective and closer to science fiction than solid policy. In his comments on ethanol production, the President might as well have called for 1 zillion barrels of ethanol, while placing his pinky next to his lips with a smirk, because ethanol experts reacted just like the table of world leaders in Austin Powers, “There isn’t 1 zillion barrels of ethanol in the whole world!” We can not grow enough corn to make enough ethanol to make a difference in our energy needs, at least not with current technology. It will take breakthroughs in the future and taxing our limited resources of today only squeezes consumers; it does not, as liberals erroneously believe, create vast pools of tax revenue from the bloated profits of oil companies with no economic consequences.
Two, if the United States wants a practical, cost-effective and tested method of generating more energy without burning fossil fuels, we should take a page from the Europeans and the Japanese. They have learned that strategic development of nuclear power can be clean, quiet and efficient. We are still plagued by the ghosts of our history where reactionary opinions against a fledgling technology and mass protests have seemingly left an indelible, negative impression. We must overcome this foolish prejudice and embrace the progressive and creative ideas of new technology.
Labels: energy
posted by dm at 9:45 AM
1 Comments:
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R12
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
"To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
Feb. 12, 2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
The Oil Companies should be required to invest a substantial percentage of their profit in renewable energy R&D and implementation. Those who do not will be panelized by the public at large by boy cutting their products.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2
4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”).
Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on "performance based" (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product - that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.
Installing a renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage.
Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.
The head of the U.S. government's renewable energy lab said Monday (Feb. 5) that the federal government is doing "embarrassingly few things" to foster renewable energy, leaving leadership to the states at a time of opportunity to change the nation's energy future. "I see little happening at the federal level. Much more needs to happen." What's needed, he said, is a change of our national mind set. Instead of viewing the hurdles that still face renewable sources and setting national energy goals with those hurdles in mind, we should set ambitious national renewable energy goals and set about overcoming the hurdles to meet them. We have an opportunity, an opportunity we can take advantage of or an opportunity we can squander and let go,"
solar energy - the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems.
Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA 91325
Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com
Post a Comment
<< Home