Yes, Obama has had some bad luck and poorly received ideas on energy. But this latest idea seems a decent mix and compromise to start out with, with the aim of reducing oil imports by a third.
Quote
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/30/news/economy/obama_energy_plan/index.htm?hpt=C1
Obama's cursed energy hand
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- President Obama has had some pretty lousy luck with his energy plans.
Last March he proposed opening up new areas of the country for offshore oil drilling. A month later BP's rig blew up in the Gulf of Mexico.
This year he asked for $36 billion to help build new nuclear plants. Within weeks at least three reactors at a Japanese nuclear plant were on the verge of a meltdown.
His capstone plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions failed in the Senate. Governors are giving back his high speed rail money. His energy czar is gone.
"He picked the three losers right from the start," said Kevin Book, a managing director at the research firm ClearView Energy Partners, referring to the greenhouse gas law, oil drilling and nuclear power. "His timing couldn't be worse."
To be fair, a lot of this isn't Obama's fault. But just what has the president accomplished on the energy front, and where can he go from here?
On Wednesday Obama will outline a plan to reduce the nation's imports of foreign oil by a third in a little over 10 years, mainly through increased domestic production, conservation, and a shift to biofuels and natural gas.
In 2010 the nation imported about 9.5 million barrels of oil, gasoline and other related products a day and used just over 19 million barrels a day, according to the Energy Information Agency.
Despite calls for more drilling, Book said the Obama administration has actually made fewer areas available for oil and gas exploration, and not just because of the BP spill.
Onshore, leases in Utah granted under the Bush administration have been rescinded over environmental concerns.
Just prior to the BP spill, the Obama administration had called for opening up more areas for offshore drilling. But Book says that was a bit of a ruse.
Those areas were supposed to be open anyway under polices put forth by the Bush administration. Obama held them up, and said he might open them if Congress was willing to bargain on other energy issues, primarily passing a cap on greenhouse gasses. Thanks to the BP spill, that bargaining never happened and most of those areas remain off limits.
On the coal front, Obama has been reining in the energy companies, primarily though aggressive restrictions via the Environmental Protection Agency surrounding mountain top mining.
"Almost everything that has been done is to ratchet back the decisions of the Bush administration,' said Book. "It's largely been a restrictive policy."
A good way to reduce dependency on foreign oil might be to actually, you know, drill for more oil here at home. Obama can't stand the thought of that, yet he went down to Brazil & promised to help *them* drill for oil. Even the Washington Post was flummoxed by the whole thing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/drill-brazil-drill-says-the-us/2011/03/25/AFHba4kB_story.html
Princesca was ranting about that whole thing the other night.
Actually K-dog it sounds like a bunch of hooey.
So the plan is to increase domestic production, but we won't allow more drilling.
We want to increase conservation, but that goes without saying. This is right up their with balancing the budget plans by "reducing waste and corruption!"
And we want to use more biofuels, but we will be maintaining the tariffs on biofuel imports and continuing to prop up domestic ethanol production, even though it makes little sense?
Yeah, sounds like a fucking outstanding plan.
At least he didn't spend half his time talking about windmills & electric cars. That's a start, I guess.
Simply buy more of our oil - which is not all that foriegn....
edit, I see that is part of the plan.
QuoteIn his speech, the President said he knows the country will still have to bring in foreign oil, giving a nod to America's friends in the Western Hemisphere, including Canada.
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2011, 03:37:19 PM
At least he didn't spend half his time talking about windmills & electric cars. That's a start, I guess.
Especially since we already use those things.
I do not understand the drilling issue. If conservation is really that critical why not spend research money on more environmental drilling techniques and so forth? If that would result in enabling expansions in drilling surely that would be a good investment.
The part about converting thing to NasGas is a great idea.
This is all terribly nice but not really meaningful. I think only the French can have a serious energy policy because they're the only country with a strong enough central government for it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 30, 2011, 04:08:51 PM
This is all terribly nice but not really meaningful. I think only the French can have a serious energy policy because they're the only country with a strong enough central government for it.
Well, yeah. It's less about dictating direct action and more about incentives and disincentives.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 03:54:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2011, 03:37:19 PM
At least he didn't spend half his time talking about windmills & electric cars. That's a start, I guess.
Especially since we already use those things.
Point?
QuoteI do not understand the drilling issue. If conservation is really that critical why not spend research money on more environmental drilling techniques and so forth? If that would result in enabling expansions in drilling surely that would be a good investment.
That assumes there's something to research. I don't know enough about it to say whether there is or not. Anyway, Obama just seems to be dead set against any new drilling here.
Obama is exactly the kind of politician to have the courage to screw the detractors, denounce the corn ethanol racket, tell Iowa to get fucked, and get us off that highly ruinous dead end.
Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2011, 04:40:53 PM
Obama is exactly the kind of politician to have the courage to screw the detractors, denounce the corn ethanol racket, tell Iowa to get fucked, and get us off that highly ruinous dead end.
I like making money off of it. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 30, 2011, 05:08:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2011, 04:40:53 PM
Obama is exactly the kind of politician to have the courage to screw the detractors, denounce the corn ethanol racket, tell Iowa to get fucked, and get us off that highly ruinous dead end.
I like making money off of it. :)
ADM ?
Quote from: citizen k on March 30, 2011, 05:10:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 30, 2011, 05:08:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2011, 04:40:53 PM
Obama is exactly the kind of politician to have the courage to screw the detractors, denounce the corn ethanol racket, tell Iowa to get fucked, and get us off that highly ruinous dead end.
I like making money off of it. :)
ADM ?
partial ownership of a corn farm. I'm trying to make a real life Farmville.
Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2011, 04:40:53 PM
Obama is exactly the kind of politician to have the courage to screw the detractors, denounce the corn ethanol racket, tell Iowa to get fucked, and get us off that highly ruinous dead end.
You're kidding, right?
Given how much new techniques are wringing out of old fields and new ones like Bakken, seems like we'll do okay on the domestic oil front.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 03:54:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2011, 03:37:19 PM
At least he didn't spend half his time talking about windmills & electric cars. That's a start, I guess.
Especially since we already use those things.
I do not understand the drilling issue. If conservation is really that critical why not spend research money on more environmental drilling techniques and so forth? If that would result in enabling expansions in drilling surely that would be a good investment.
The opposition to drilling is religious in nature, so argumentation based on logic isn't possible. Remember, this is the same administration that got cought falsifying a report on off-shore drilling in order to justify the drilling moratorium. Unfortunately, we have an administration that is deeply anti-science.
Quote from: Faeelin on March 30, 2011, 05:18:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2011, 04:40:53 PM
Obama is exactly the kind of politician to have the courage to screw the detractors, denounce the corn ethanol racket, tell Iowa to get fucked, and get us off that highly ruinous dead end.
You're kidding, right?
:P
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 30, 2011, 07:12:32 PM
Unfortunately, we have an administration that is deeply anti-science.
The last US President to be elected who wasn't anti-science was Carter. The last good US President to be elected who wasn't anti-science was Nixon.
Of course. Without science, how would his head survive to rule the world 1000 years from now?
Quote from: derspiess on March 30, 2011, 02:45:43 PM
A good way to reduce dependency on foreign oil might be to actually, you know, drill for more oil here at home.
If you increase your own supply of oil why demand is still increasing, you are only keeping things equal.
You need to drill more AND reduce your energy consumption.
I think you should import more of Quebec's hydro-electricity instead of burning coal or oil ;)
Oh, and go nuclear, too. But wait a few years ;)
Meh, like "we'll go to Mars by 2050!", I always assumed Energy Plans were just for political consumption.
After all, where are the hydrogen fuel-cell cars that Bush promised? :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 30, 2011, 09:03:23 PM
After all, where are the hydrogen fuel-cell cars that Bush promised? :mad:
Wherever it is, I bet you'll find our balanced budget there too.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 30, 2011, 05:15:34 PM
partial ownership of a corn farm. I'm trying to make a real life Farmville.
I am a: Friend of Coal :ph34r:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 30, 2011, 09:03:23 PM
After all, where are the hydrogen fuel-cell cars that Bush promised? :mad:
Wherever it is, I bet you'll find our balanced budget there too.
ΒΈ :lmfao:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 30, 2011, 09:03:23 PM
After all, where are the hydrogen fuel-cell cars that Bush promised? :mad:
Wherever it is, I bet you'll find our balanced budget there too.
And the non-raised taxes.
Quote from: Berkut on March 30, 2011, 03:15:36 PM
So the plan is to increase domestic production, but we won't allow more drilling.
We want to increase conservation, but that goes without saying. This is right up their with balancing the budget plans by "reducing waste and corruption!"
And we want to use more biofuels, but we will be maintaining the tariffs on biofuel imports and continuing to prop up domestic ethanol production, even though it makes little sense?
Yeah, sounds like a fucking outstanding plan.
When I first saw this plan, I had in the back of my mind these opposite policies that Obama has pursued. But I was hoping that going forward he was, maybe, hopefully, planning on changing his stance on some of these things. As I thought about it more, I think that this is more likely part of the beginning phase of Obama's re-election campaign strategy so he gives lip service to these ideas. Sad really, for us.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 30, 2011, 09:07:20 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 30, 2011, 09:03:23 PM
After all, where are the hydrogen fuel-cell cars that Bush promised? :mad:
Wherever it is, I bet you'll find our balanced budget there too.
Oh man, low blow!! :D But so right, given the track record of US politics for too long.
Quote from: DGuller on March 30, 2011, 04:40:53 PM
Obama is exactly the kind of politician to have the courage to screw the detractors, denounce the corn ethanol racket, tell Iowa to get fucked, and get us off that highly ruinous dead end.
Corn ethanol. Is that as bad a racket as it seems it is?? Takes planting fields out of human food production to grow a certain type of corn, and it takes about as much energy to make ethanol as it will produce. In the meantime we limit imports on sugar based ethanol which is supposed to be a lot more efficient. And a big impetus to keep it all going is the money made off of this racket by those in the loop. :huh:
If that's not enough, we also mix in some of that corn ethanol into fuel, which often degrades the efficiency of the car far beyond what you would expect just from lower energy density of ethanol.
Quote from: DGuller on March 31, 2011, 02:35:37 PM
If that's not enough, we also mix in some of that corn ethanol into fuel, which often degrades the efficiency of the car far beyond what you would expect just from lower energy density of ethanol.
Sweet..... <_<
As long as Ed makes money, that is all that matters.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 31, 2011, 03:17:54 PM
As long as Ed makes money, that is all that matters.
:yes: