Huge Energy Bill - Has House Approval

  • News
  • Thread starter SOS2008
  • Start date
  • #51
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
pattylou said:
Wow. If you plug "solar cell manufacturers" into google, and take the first hit, you go here:

http://www.solarbuzz.com/solarindex/CellManufacturers.htm

And *very quickly* see that the vast majority of companies are not US based.

So! I would suggest funding the few US based manufacturers.
I know you're big on solar, Patty, but don't forget where you live. It isn't a feasible option nationwide, especially on the northeastern seaboard, where most of the people in this country live. Remember the disaster that was the Citicorp center?
 
  • #52
loseyourname said:
Come on, SOS. In business, as in psychology, positive reinforcement generally works better than negative reinforcement. How do you treat your kids?



The expense of the American citizen? You don't think the American citizen has anything to gain from the development of new and better energy technologies? Of course there is back-scratching going on. There always is in politics. Such a thing doesn't preclude a positive impact on the citizenry.
Now you're taking the piss aren't you?

We all know about Reaganomics and other forms of fantasy fiction.

Reality is ... when there are extra profits, they pay dividends.

As far as how they explain it ... creative accounting.

Yeah ... the average American Citizen has TONS to gain from alternate fuel sources and he will eventually get there ... but only after 'big energy' has bled the well dry.

Given the record of most of your large corporations in the USA, when in the last few months do you think they actually grew the moral backbone you attribute to them?
 
  • #53
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Once again, Smoking Man, I have to ask what the hell you are talking about. I've said nothing about any trickle down employment theories, stock payoffs, or moral backbones. I've made several assertions. To sum up:

1) If you're going to give breaks to energy companies, you should give breaks to companies with a track record of developing successful technology.

2) If you want to develop feasible alternative sources - which right now, equal nuclear and hydrogen - you give money to the companies that have been developing those technologies successfully.

3) It would be irresponsible of the government to invest large sums of money in startup companies that may or may not fare well and may or may not develop any usable technology.

That's about it. I don't see the problem everyone has here. We're trying to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, right? Well, good. This bill gives only 19% of its money to fossil fuel companies, most of which I would imagine is to tap into natural gas resources, which are still relatively abundant and are clean burning. Do you have any specific objections to this bill? Do you have any specific counterarguments to my claims? Or are you just going to continue to tangentially bash everything big-business and Republican, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with this bill or anything in this thread?

And what the hell do you mean by I'm taking a piss? I've never heard anyone use that expression except to refer to the emptying of one's bladder, so I have no clue what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
So if we want to invest in spacetravel, just as an example of your reasoning, Lose, then we should throw money at NASA, which has all that experience? Instead of investing in some risky startup like, say, Rutan?
 
  • #55
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
That is what the government does, isn't it? As far as I know, NASA is entirely funded through taxpayer money.

If you want to invest, I recommend taking a risk, just so long as you do your research and diversify your portfolio to mitigate that risk. It doesn't work the same with tax breaks and subsidies.
 
  • #56
loseyourname said:
Once again, Smoking Man, I have to ask what the hell you are talking about. I've said nothing about any trickle down employment theories, stock payoffs, or moral backbones. I've made several assertions. To sum up:

1) If you're going to give breaks to energy companies, you should give breaks to companies with a track record of developing successful technology.
Great. And 19% goes to the oil companies who's last major development was unleaded.

loseyourname said:
2) If you want to develop feasible alternative sources - which right now, equal nuclear and hydrogen - you give money to the companies that have been developing those technologies successfully.
I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?

Hydrogen great ... http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/03/env_hydrogen_fu.php Now when do we realize that this is not a 'nationality thing'. Japan decided to come to the fore in computer design and mandated that ALL major computer companies contribute manpower and funding to a central 'Japanese' consortium for this purpose.

What we NEED since this is a global problem is an intelligent approach to a global solution modelled on the Japanese 'computer' consortium.

2050 is the date projected for the collapse of the oil industry. Between now and that time things are going to heat up very quickly. We have already seen the USA block the purchase of UNOCAL by a Chinese company when they declared oil a National Security Issue.

Just when are things going to get REALLY nasty? When do we act? ... When the rockets are launched or NOW when we can prevent the crisis?

loseyourname said:
3) It would be irresponsible of the government to invest large sums of money in startup companies that may or may not fare well and may or may not develop any usable technology.
Then again, that company on the 'treehugger' link above probably won't even show a blip on the taxation system but they DO have a working prototype.

The problem with 'taxation rebate schemes' is that they rarely deliver the funding to the right people. Another inherent flaw is that as the oil gets more expensive when it becomes rarer, revenues go up along with taxes along with tax rebate percentages.

Given my druthers, I would much rather that the equivalent amount rebated to big oil be sunk into that Intelligent Energy company or the like in the USA. This can't be created with some form of automated system that does not compute in a 'result' variable into the equation. Invariably, anyone with a good accountant will claw back more money than they deserve.

loseyourname said:
That's about it. I don't see the problem everyone has here. We're trying to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, right? Well, good. This bill gives only 19% of its money to fossil fuel companies, most of which I would imagine is to tap into natural gas resources, which are still relatively abundant and are clean burning. Do you have any specific objections to this bill? Do you have any specific counterarguments to my claims? Or are you just going to continue to tangentially bash everything big-business and Republican, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with this bill or anything in this thread?
Well, I must admit that the larger funding will end up in the area of the companies with the largest revenues. Now, a quick review of just who those companies are and the 'pull' they have had with the government in general, just who do you think they will be?

Do you think that companies like the Enrons and Halliburtons will be completely on the Up and Up (one gone bust after illegal activities in accounting and the other repeatedly fined for illegal activities)? Do you think the same White House that allowed Ken Lay to choose the EPA inspection team isn't going to do something creative?

Good god man, even some of the funding provisions in 'Homeland Security' for costal defense was diverted into ALABAMA ... a landlocked state!!!

Trusting this legislation is like believing there were WMD in Iraq and that it wasn't about Iraq sitting on the second largest oil field in the world behind the Saudis.

loseyourname said:
And what the hell do you mean by I'm taking a piss? I've never heard anyone use that expression except to refer to the emptying of one's bladder, so I have no clue what you're talking about.
Sorry, I'll try not to use real English on you next time.
 
  • #57
loseyourname said:
Once again, Smoking Man, I have to ask what the hell you are talking about. I've said nothing about any trickle down employment theories, stock payoffs, or moral backbones.
Oh, yes and before I forget ... there is an awful lot you do always gloss over.

The above list is the byproduct of the type of scheme that is being presented.

Each incarnation has had numerous names over the years but it all boils down to the same thing.

I am really surprised that Bush has been allowed to use it twice during his term. First the rebate to create jobs and now the rebate to create alternate energy. Wow.

It's a bit like The Longest Yard ... Just how many times must Americans take the ball in the nuts before you see a pattern forming and can predict the outcome?

Oh, and just so you know, Arthur Anderson designed the ethics course at Harvard. :biggrin:

"The problem is that the good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas reserves where there are democratic governments." Guess who said that and guess what he paid in fines while addressing the problem?

Capitalism is diametrically opposed to working in a democratic system. THAT's why the capitalists of America have abandoned America. They persue the bottom line not fairness or honesty. That often takes them outside the USA and outside the law (In some circles it's called globalization and that is what all the protests are about. :surprised).
 
Last edited:
  • #58
loseyourname said:
Most of my knowledge of how they get funded comes from the dot.com boom here in the bay area in the nineties. That was funded almost entirely by venture capitalists. Heck, half the people starting the companies hadn't even completed their degrees. I'm pretty sure most biotech startups these days are started by university professors or clinical researchers that have been in the business a long time. It's likely that they largely fund themselves, but I really don't know. My roommate's father startups restaurants and bars and he gets his funding mostly from banks. I don't even know of any energy startups. What companies did you have in mind that you think should receive subsidies?
Oh, and as a final thought before I hit the sack. (That's a term meaning go to bed. And yes, I am 'taking the piss'.)

I received my education into just what 'big energy' does while working at American Electric Power in Columbus, Ohio for three years.

Most of the energy they create comes from burning coal.

Due to EPA guidelines, they were required to install what are called 'scrubbers' to prevent 'nasty things' from going into the air and burning the forests of Canada.

They installed them with grants from the feds.

They get turned on about once a year when there is an inspection. (There is never a surprise inspection by the way. They are always notified beforehand.)

They say they are 'too costly to run' and cut into the bottom line.

I remember going to a seminar one day as part of my employment there as a 'consultant' in how to make it past the press without actually saying anything incriminating.

But then, I'm sure your 'room-mate's dad's start-ups of restaurants and bars' is much richer than my experience specifying parts of the Swiss banking system in Frankfurt, Germany, too. :rolleyes:
 
  • #59
288
0
loseyourname said:
I know you're big on solar, Patty, but don't forget where you live. It isn't a feasible option nationwide, especially on the northeastern seaboard, where most of the people in this country live. Remember the disaster that was the Citicorp center?
Doesn't matter. Do the same thing with wind, or hydraulic, or hydrogen, or.....

And actually, there are solar success stories in Maine. Weird, eh? I think it is more generally useful than people think. I don't have statistics on hand, but was surprised a few months ago when I googled it.
 
  • #60
In a recent speech, Hillary Clinton spoke about the Democrat platform and America's future. On the topic of energy, she shared a vision in which American companies would invent new forms of energy that not only would create jobs and profits within our country, but could become a new and wonderful export. She went on to say these are the kinds of things our country needs not only to recover economically and to end dependency on foreign oil, but to renew the American dream. In my mind this would mean giving assistance to start-ups that not only have a proven track record, but to properly reward those who have taken the initiative without federal bribery. Unfortunately the GOP view of the future is a continuation of multinational monopoly and global exploitation.
 
  • #61
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
The Smoking Man said:
I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?
It never became nonviable. The predjudice against it is merely political. Advocate groups who react to the word nucleus rhe way 16th century Germans reacted to the word witch.
 
  • #62
selfAdjoint said:
It never became nonviable. The predjudice against it is merely political. Advocate groups who react to the word nucleus rhe way 16th century Germans reacted to the word witch.
Unfortunately, we don't really have witches but I can point out Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Candu Reactors, Nuclear waste, dirty bombs, North Korea and Iran to name but a few.

Chernobyl in fact had a sister station however the ex-Soviets can't afford to decomission it.

I'll send you here: http://www.chernobyl.info/

Now prove there were witches in the 16th century. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Chernobyl was the bad old USSR design, Three Mile Island never hurt anybody. Nuclear weapons are not the same thing as nuclear power. No info on Candu. Nuclear waste can be handled as it is, but a better solution would be to build IFR reactors which can "eat" high-rad waste and produce low-rad waste that can be safely stored. Dirty bombs are an urban legend; once again, weapons and power are not reasonably connected. Take a gander over at the Nuclear Engineering subforum.

Your response reminds me of the sermons against witches that fired the people's imaginations back there in the 16th century.
 
  • #64
selfAdjoint said:
Chernobyl was the bad old USSR design, Three Mile Island never hurt anybody. Nuclear weapons are not the same thing as nuclear power. No info on Candu. Nuclear waste can be handled as it is, but a better solution would be to build IFR reactors which can "eat" high-rad waste and produce low-rad waste that can be safely stored. Dirty bombs are an urban legend; once again, weapons and power are not reasonably connected. Take a gander over at the Nuclear Engineering subforum.

Your response reminds me of the sermons against witches that fired the people's imaginations back there in the 16th century.
I KNOW you'll love this image :biggrin:

I won't bother with the debate here.

It's raging in enough places.

Suffice it to say, I don't agree.

I'm surprised you have not heard of the Candu though!?

I just tried a search on 'Candu Reactor' and got glowing reports over a number of pages.

Then I did a search on'Candu Reactor Cracks' and was equally surprised.
 
  • #65
Doncha LOVE Ben Sargent? http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20050802/sbs050801.gif [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
The Smoking Man said:
Great. And 19% goes to the oil companies who's last major development was unleaded.
Or funding the building of hydrogen fueled public transit fleets and fueling stations.

I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?
It's provided power to a large part of southern California for decades. Maybe if that company you worked for in Ohio had switched, we wouldn't have to worry about all the acid rain in Canada destroying lakes and rivers.

Well, I must admit that the larger funding will end up in the area of the companies with the largest revenues. Now, a quick review of just who those companies are and the 'pull' they have had with the government in general, just who do you think they will be?
Well, I just finished looking over the bill (it's extremely long and I couldn't read all of it) and I can see that there aren't any rebates whatsoever earmarked to any specific companies. Looks like this fuss over 'big energy' was nothing more than a fuss. The rebates are for any company or provider that meets certain standards. Very few have anything to do with oil. Most of the fossil fuel incentives have to do with running 'clean-burning' coal plants and tapping into natural gas resources.

And just to make Patty happy, there actually are rebates in there for installing photovoltaic systems in buildings. They just aren't considered viable for public utilities purposes, which are focusing on hydroelectric and nuclear power, along with a huge number of conservation incentives, in this bill.

You might want to try reading the bill before you bash it next time.

Good god man, even some of the funding provisions in 'Homeland Security' for costal defense was diverted into ALABAMA ... a landlocked state!!!
Alabama is on the gulf coast, genius.

Sorry, I'll try not to use real English on you next time.
How do you expect me to be familiar with a colloquialism from a country I've never been to?
 
Last edited:
  • #67
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
The Smoking Man said:
The above list is the byproduct of the type of scheme that is being presented.

Each incarnation has had numerous names over the years but it all boils down to the same thing.

I am really surprised that Bush has been allowed to use it twice during his term. First the rebate to create jobs and now the rebate to create alternate energy. Wow.
Trickle down economic theory states that if you give tax breaks to businesses, they'll have more money to spend on labor, creating jobs. The opposing theory, I suppose, is that we should either tax businesses more and give the money to the poor so that they don't have to get jobs, or have the government directly create jobs. Let's see how you're applying this to energy.

This bill provides tax incentives to companies that meet certain cleanliness standards, conservation standards, tapping of new resource, installation of solar panels on commercial builings, etc. So what is the antithesis to this "trickle-down" theory as you're choosing to call it? We tax energy companies more and use that money to clean up the environment after we've ruined it? We tax them and the government uses that money to buy its own generators? I don't see how the energy situation is all that analagous to employment.

Capitalism is diametrically opposed to working in a democratic system.
What on earth are you talking about? Is that why capitalism has been so successful in communist and fascist countries and so unsuccessful in democratic countries? Yet another tangential rant that has nothing to do with the energy bill, which I'm sure you haven't even bothered looking at.
 
  • #68
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
The Smoking Man said:
But then, I'm sure your 'room-mate's dad's start-ups of restaurants and bars' is much richer than my experience specifying parts of the Swiss banking system in Frankfurt, Germany, too. :rolleyes:
So you have a bigger dick than me. Does that have anything to do with who is being more evenhanded in their evaluation of this bill?
 
  • #69
loseyourname said:
Or funding the building of hydrogen fueled public transit fleets and fueling stations.
They have to develop the fuel first and they have no incentive to do so.

loseyourname said:
It's provided power to a large part of southern California for decades. Maybe if that company you worked for in Ohio had switched, we wouldn't have to worry about all the acid rain in Canada destroying lakes and rivers.
Hey, you don't get it ... They don't give a rat's keester either way. All they know is they get a tax break for owning them. That is IN FACT what I have been telling you. The rebate system is flawed when there is no check for compliance or targetting of goals.

loseyourname said:
Well, I just finished looking over the bill (it's extremely long and I couldn't read all of it) and I can see that there aren't any rebates whatsoever earmarked to any specific companies. Looks like this fuss over 'big energy' was nothing more than a fuss. The rebates are for any company or provider that meets certain standards. Very few have anything to do with oil. Most of the fossil fuel incentives have to do with running 'clean-burning' coal plants and tapping into natural gas resources.
Don't worry. Big energy has had teams of lawyers and accountants running over it for you and will cut to the heart of the matter.

loseyourname said:
And just to make Patty happy, there actually are rebates in there for installing photovoltaic systems in buildings. They just aren't considered viable for public utilities purposes, which are focusing on hydroelectric and nuclear power, along with a huge number of conservation incentives, in this bill.

You might want to try reading the bill before you bash it next time.
LOL, I just told you how the largest supplier in the NE USA tapped the 'conservation incentives' in the last bill. They didn't have to even break stride to collect on this one too.
loseyourname said:
Alabama is on the gulf coast, genius.
Sorry, I meant Arkansas ... Oooo and it also appears that becasue Oklahoma has the Canadian River, they get some cash too!!! Goo ooo oooly Sargeant! We kin eat in Mayberry Tonight!!!
loseyourname said:
How do you expect me to be familiar with a colloquialism from a country I've never been to?
Oh, no reason ... just thought you might have seen a movie or two. :rolleyes:
 
  • #70
20
0
loseyourname said:
And just to make Patty happy, there actually are rebates in there for installing photovoltaic systems in buildings. They just aren't considered viable for public utilities purposes...
Out of curiosity, why? If we could drop the real cost of solar cells by a factor of two with research investment, it might be possible to deal with the energy crisis once and for all. If I did my calculations correctly, a moderate clime gets on the order of 4 kWHrs/day/square meter. That's about 20 square meters per household for a state like California, which isn't so bad. If we can double the efficiency (which is possible) solar farms in Arizona could power Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego and probably Texas as well-which would be a pretty big load off conventional power sources. You would need some advances in power storage for nighttime operations, but it's certainly moving closer and closer to viable.
 
  • #71
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
The Smoking Man said:
They have to develop the fuel first and they have no incentive to do so.
Do you mean they have to develop better cells that are commerically viable? You certainly can't mean that they have to develop hydrogen. It's the most abundant element in the universe and easy enough to extract from water.

Hey, you don't get it ... They don't give a rat's keester either way. All they know is they get a tax break for owning them. That is IN FACT what I have been telling you. The rebate system is flawed when there is no check for compliance or targetting of goals.

Don't worry. Big energy has had teams of lawyers and accountants running over it for you and will cut to the heart of the matter.

LOL, I just told you how the largest supplier in the NE USA tapped the 'conservation incentives' in the last bill. They didn't have to even break stride to collect on this one too.
So are you going to bother looking at the bill at all, or do you just think any rebate scheme can't work? Despite almost all of the objections you make to the actual bill being factually incorrect and based on your not having read the bill, you're just going to continue along these lines.

By the way, your point about the Ohio provider had nothing to do with the conservation incentives in this bill. Those incentives aren't even for providers. Again, read the damn bill before criticizing it.

just thought you might have seen a movie or two. :rolleyes:
I've seen quite a bit more than two. None where any characters ever used the phrase 'taking the piss' to mean anything other than taking a piss.

Didn't you say you were going to sleep?
 
  • #72
loseyourname said:
So you have a bigger dick than me. Does that have anything to do with who is being more evenhanded in their evaluation of this bill?
No son, I just have 25 years more experience as an analyst than you and have not to mention living through the eras that you only talk about.

I have also lived and worked in 6 different countries including the USA.

Heck, by the time I had hit your age, I had sat through the whole Watergate inquest, watched vietnam rage on my TV set and saw it end.

You had better stop this naive approach of analysis of 'Bills' that come down from on high. Look for loopholes and how it will be abused from the onset.

To approach ANYTHING that comes out of the government without acknowledging the whole 'lobby system' and what they influence and hide in each bill is like sticking a sign on you that says 'Rape Me'.

Don't be even handed. You can bet they aren't.
 
  • #73
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
danAlwyn said:
Out of curiosity, why? If we could drop the real cost of solar cells by a factor of two with research investment, it might be possible to deal with the energy crisis once and for all. If I did my calculations correctly, a moderate clime gets on the order of 4 kWHrs/day/square meter. That's about 20 square meters per household for a state like California, which isn't so bad. If we can double the efficiency (which is possible) solar farms in Arizona could power Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego and probably Texas as well-which would be a pretty big load off conventional power sources. You would need some advances in power storage for nighttime operations, but it's certainly moving closer and closer to viable.
Well first, probably because it would require a huge change in infrastructure. Commercial solar power right now, what little of it there is, doesn't even use photovoltaic cells. If you wanted to actually do that, you'd have to build huge arrays to power an entire grid. No public utility has the resources to do that, but individual businesses can certainly do it to their buildings. The bill does encourage research - in the form of new university grants - into making solar power more viable, which frankly is about the best we can do with it right now.
 
  • #74
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
The Smoking Man said:
No son, I just have 25 years more experience as an analyst than you and have not to mention living through the eras that you only talk about.

I have also lived and worked in 6 different countries including the USA.
You're also quite the expert on ad hominem arguments, aren't you? I'm younger than you and haven't lived in as many places, therefore I must be wrong and you must be right. Was that still considered to be a valid argument form when you were in school? Meanwhile, you don't even look at the bill being discussed, but you're the expert on it because you once worked for a utility company.

What exactly do you expect from the government? I have to wonder. Is there such a thing as a bill with no loopholes? Seriously, man, read the damn bill and tell me what you would change about it. I'm sure it has plenty of real shortcomings, plenty that even a young sapling like I could find. Have you considered the alternative plans that were proposed and whether or not they were any better? Or are you simply going to complain no matter what is done? Until you at least look at the actual plan, you're making yourself look like a fool, with the appeal to age/wisdom/experience card. Come on.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
loseyourname said:
Do you mean they have to develop better cells that are commerically viable? You certainly can't mean that they have to develop hydrogen. It's the most abundant element in the universe and easy enough to extract from water.
Going to go all literal on me now are you? Yeah, cells of many types. One is the type you envision and another is based on a sealed battery design.

Hydrogen IS plentiful, yes. Unfortunately, it takes electricity to extract from water ... electrolysis. Power to get power. The process needs work.
loseyourname said:
So are you going to bother looking at the bill at all, or do you just think any rebate scheme can't work? Despite almost all of the objections you make to the actual bill being factually incorrect and based on your not having read the bill, you're just going to continue along these lines.
Let me ask YOU since you have read it ... What is the demonstration to the government that you qualify for the rebate? What are the Checks and Balances? Basically, what happens in these schemes is that they leave it up to the TAX OFFICE to enforce the chriteria. THAT is the flaw with all of these schemes. You have a tax accountant looking over a balance sheet.
loseyourname said:
By the way, your point about the Ohio provider had nothing to do with the conservation incentives in this bill. Those incentives aren't even for providers. Again, read the damn bill before criticizing it.
LOL ... Rebates don't work. Grants that are justified with targets etc. DO. It is a simple fact.
loseyourname said:
I've seen quite a bit more than two. None where any characters ever used the phrase 'taking the piss' to mean anything other than taking a piss.
Allow me to educate you then: http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv5-&p=taking the piss&ei=UTF-8
loseyourname said:
Didn't you say you were going to sleep?
I did ... I only sleep 4 hours a night.
 

Related Threads on Huge Energy Bill - Has House Approval

Replies
72
Views
6K
Replies
46
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
72
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
14K
Replies
30
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
841
Top