Maxine Water Spills Beans, Drops S Bomb

[BrentAllen]

Sometimes, the truth is just too hard to hide....

 

[scoutldr]

Was there ever any doubt?

[GernBlansten]

Just in time for Halloween. Some scary words and phrases to keep us on the edges of our wits. I do love this time of year. BOOOOO!

[John-in-KC]

There are unadulterated versions of that session on youtube. Without the histrionics, they are actually better for ramming home the point.

[CalicoPenn]

Yet no one comments on the oil industry exec who danced around the question and refused to state how they could guarantee that prices would go down if they could drill in pristine wilderness.

 

I agree with Maxine - if the oil companies want to drill in ANWR, they must give us something in return - a guarantee on price caps - and if they fail to live up to the guarantee, let them put up their firms as collateral to the American people.

 

If the oil companies had devoted more time and effort to alternative fuel sources when the US first told them no, we wouldn't need to be holding hearings again.

[BrentAllen]

Spoken like a true socialist. At least you didn't use any profanity.

[scoutingagain]

"Just in time for Halloween."

 

Well since the statements were made in a hearing held in the Spring of 2008 I'd say they were in plenty of time for Halloween 2009.

 

SA

[packsaddle]

"Oh good grief!", as Charlie Brown says. That'll have to do for the Halloween part of my message. But as for the altered Youtube clip, nothing there on either side had any substance nor any likelihood of coming to pass, except maybe for the high price of fuel (but he knew that when he said it).

Maxine Waters is not going to lead a socialist takeover of the oil companies. The oil executive was obliquely offering the carrot of low-priced gasoline (lie, that isn't going to happen) and the stick of high-priced gasoline and guess what? The price is going to trend up, no matter what. Even at $10 a gallon, petroleum would still be a bargain for what we get from it. Drilling holes is getting more and more expensive and we're having to drill deeper and in riskier and more forbidding places. The price of extraction and production is going up so guess what? The price of the fuel will too. Everything else is theater.

[John-in-KC]

The simple fact is we do need to be more creative about obtaining energy, and we can be.

 

Wind and geothermal are both huge potential inputs to the electrical grid. If we tapped more geothermal, I'll bet we could hugely run down the cost per Kwh over time and supply more, while also reducing the pollutants from coal.

 

That, though, would take some actual imagination on Congresses part to incentivize wind, solar and geothermal, and after all....

 

1 Useless Man is called a Disgrace

2 are called a Law Firm

and 3 or More become a CONNNN...Gress.

...spoken by John Adams in 1776

[packsaddle]

John-in-KC, I'm going to relieve you of an illusion. It's similar to the idiotic illusion that the oil under ANWR can replace our imports...utter nonsense. There is not nearly enough geothermal potential to replace what we generate with coal. Over 95% of the coal used by this country is used to generate electricity and that amounts to a little less than 50% of all the electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png

Combine that with about 20% from natural gas and a couple of % from oil, and the fact that ALL of the non-hydro renewables currently make up less than 3% of the contribution....good luck.

The areas that have geothermal potential are not near many of our major population areas (think New England and the Northeast in general, not to mention Chicago, Milwaukee, rust belt, etc.). Transmission losses between these areas and places that have significant geothermal potential would make that electricity very expensive. Especially compared to that strip-mined black stuff right next door.

If you go to the Columbia River gorge area you will see some huge hydroelectric dams that have empty bays for additional generators. Not even close to harnessing all the hydro potential of that river BUT, if you scan the hilltops you will see growing forests of wind turbines. Why?

Government incentives.

For example, Duke Energy (arguably the largest power company on the planet) has recently pledged not to build any more coal plants (after the one they have planned now). Why? Because states, more and more (NC for example) are mandating that in order for them to be allowed to operate, they must achieve a certain percentage of their system as 'renewable' sources (hydro, wind, etc.). Duke Energy has no choice - but they do have the money to just 'buy' this 'match' so they buy it. There is nothing in the law that mandates where the renewable is located so they buy it in Michigan or Iowa or Washington, OR they cooperate with businesses building wind turbines (think...former oil man turned onto wind). Those big dams on the Columbia are federal projects...not for sale. So wind becomes the cheaper way to meet the requirements.

Is this a thoughtful way to meet our energy demands? Does it allow the marketplace to operate to support development of wind energy on the basis of its profitability? The answer is 'yes' ONLY if the profitability is skewed in favor of wind by government regulation.

If we let the market (and the consumers) determine the source of electricity on the basis of market forces alone, we'd have to hit some high coal prices before those renewable alternatives were effective market players. If left to the consumers and market forces alone, we'd shave off every mountain in the Appalachians that had coal underneath.

This is not to say that such incentives and mandates are NOT the way it should happen. But people had better realize that a shift to alternative sources IS a shift toward greater government control over markets. Me, I'm still waiting for a truly conservative approach. None proposed, so far, from any of the political types.

[Lisabob]

Federal government currently offers subsidies for a number of individual-level investments in solar, wind, and geothermal, in the form of tax breaks for people who do these things. Some states do, too. The catch in almost all of these I've seen so far (and I admit it isn't a field I follow in great detail) is that you have to front most or all of the money yourself, and then you get a tax rebate later. There are also a bunch of regs on where/how/when you can install or build the structures. For example, in NY, you could only get the rebate the first time you installed any such devices. So if you wanted to do a smaller trial run, decided you liked it, it worked well, and consequently you wanted to add to your collection of solar panels (or whatever), you would only get the rebate the first time. This is a disincentive for people to expand their use of existing technology.

 

Only people with significant financial resources and who are located in the right place at the right time are going to take advantage of these rebates. From a pollution control standpoint, we probably would have been better served to take the money we spent on "cash for clunkers" and used it to provide more and better incentives for people to use renewable energy sources, instead.

 

 

 

 

[John-in-KC]

Lisa's last is my point. What is incentivized is focused after the fact, and is focused on the small scale.

 

Yes, Pack, we need to look at where wind can contribute, where hydro can contribute, and where geothermal can contribute. The fact of the matter is there are places where coal is the optimum, for now.

 

Agree on hydro, but I know environmentalists who shout "Save the Whitewater as loudly as others shout "decrease air pollution", or "no solar panels in our deserts." That last is Dianne Feinstein of CA, btw, talking about some open desert between Los Angeles and Las Vegas).

 

Glad we're not talking nuclear. Hearing people call nuclear "green" makes me laugh. It' won't be green until we find a good way to deal with the various radioactive stuff that comes from a hot vessel.

 

Personally, I think ANWR has become a symbol. It'd be nice to drill, but I believe there are viable energy alternatives especially West of the Mississippi.

 

Hope this makes sense...

[packsaddle]

I would argue that nuclear IS greener than coal or oil. The problem is that until someone finds a way to plow fields with electric tractors or fly on electric airplanes, just a couple of examples, electricity isn't going to be our salvation.

Save for that, nuclear is not all that bad. If we purchased and adopted the technology that France has developed for fuel reprocessing, and allowed the operation of breeder reactors, we could sustain a lot of energy generation for a very long time with a lot less environmental impact. The waste that eventually must be disposed of is already here anyway and we can't even make the rational decision to put it in a safe place. Talk about stupid!

Of course nuclear gets a HUGE subsidy, courtesy of the federal government, that is the only reason it is viable at all.

 

Lisa, people will choose to make those investments on their own without those rebates - if and when it is the most cost-effective rational decision for them to do so. Those alternatives will be more attractive once the price of energy increases enough or else the cost of the alternatives falls.

 

[scoutldr]

At the rate we're going, we'll be like 3rd world countries where the electricity only flows for 3 hours a day. How's that for incentive? UNfortunately, Americans do not react to threats...they won't do anything until they find themselves cold and in the dark.

[BadenP]

"Spoken like a true socialist"

Brent what a totally ignorant statement on your part. If you had your way our country would look like one big wasteland digging for oil, minerals, and natural gas to support you driving your gas guzzling redneck pickup truck. It is people like you that have created this environmental mess in the first place over the years, tell me how are you going to tell your grandkids why the oceans are too polluted to swim in or why the forests are disappearing? It is because of people like you that our country has gone from a first rate country to a second rate one. You know Dunwoody it amazes me that you were ever a scout leader since you so obviously do not respect the beauty or the necessity of God's creation. So go race your pickup and waste more fossil fuel for your own selfish needs, I find you to be a totally reprehensible person.