We are truly pathetic about energy. No help for clean coal, no support for natural gas. Nothing. We are our own worst enemy.
We are truly pathetic about energy. No help for clean coal, no support for natural gas. Nothing. We are our own worst enemy.
I am not at all fond of Cramer but he is correct on this.
Don
Don, I agree with you about Cramer being “so, so”. Mostly, I think he is trying for comedy. However, I think he is way off base on this one. The U.S. government has put billions into coal and other energy research including nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, renewable crops, geothermal, etc. It has funded research in government agencies, universities, and industry. The latter two have added in billions of their own and have done some remarkable things.
The U.S. has contributed as much in these energy fields as any other country.
2. CanaAnglican:
I agree that Cramer thinks that he is a comedian.
I understand your point that USA has, in the past, invested mightly in dams and other energy infrastucture. The government has done a great job – up until the 1970s. Now money is mostly spent on projects that are only marginally valuable for the purpose of powering our economy and lives. We are sitting on vast reserves of coal and oil and yet importing a great proportion. Who is the enemy in the battle for energy? It seems that we have met the enemy, and it is us.
Don
Vast reserves in Alaska, along the Atlantic coast, along the Pacific coast and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and we do N-O-T-H-I-N-G to bring it into production. Wind farms at sea are stopped in their tracks by environmentally-friendly politicians because it might impact their view of the sea. It is nearly impossible to build or expand refining capacity in this country. While France derives ~80% of its electricity from nuclear power, the United States hasn’t built a plant in decades and isn’t likely to any time soon.
So we have an economy that is struggling. We pay nearly $4 for a gallon of gasoline and over $4 for a gallon of diesel fuel which is the life blood of commerce.
We elect politicians who do this to us and then we complain about how bad it is.
Pogo had it right – We have met the enemy and he is us.
CT Biodiesel wants to build a multimillion dollar facility in Suffield, CT. It would produce about 50 million gallons of biodiesel each year. The biodiesel they would produce there would come mostly from soybeans. The oil would be pressed from the beans and used for fuel. The soybeans would still be available for food. The biodiesel would be a “green” renewable source of energy that would not have a negative impact on the food supply. It would lessen our dependence on imported oil. It would help reduce the amount of U.S. dollars going into the coffers of radical islamist terrorists. It would provide direct employment for 38 workers. It would be built on land that is already zoned commercial/industrial. It would be a longterm source of tax revenue.
http://www.suffieldtownhall.com/content/3147/default.aspx
Sooooo…naturally, some of the folks living there are fighting tooth and claw to keep it out of their town.
http://www.wfsb.com/news/14319985/detail.html
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?dept_id=12343&PAG=461&newsid=19319632
I hope their fuel bills [both auto and heating] continue to climb into the stratosphere! We have been using B5 biodiesel for our heating for a year now. It isn’t much of a difference, only 5%, but that is 5% of our heating dollars that are not going to support islamic terrorists. It burns cleaner [it actually cleans our oil tank and burner] and costs about the same. If they offered a higher percentage blend, we would ask for it. B5 is all that is available, for now.
Don,
Coal gassification and synfuel are pretty well developed technologically. Now that oil has jumped sky high, industry may pull out the stops to exploit them. Germany used synfuel from coal in WWII in ’44, but they had no oil at all by that point in the war. At maybe $200 per barrel of oil we will put it tp work here also. The point is it only costs a couple of dollars to get a barrel of oil out of the ground so the price could be dropped quickly about the time we have completed the huge investment to make synfuel. If I remember correctly it dropped from $80 to $10 in a matter of months back in the ’70’s. I would not look for that now, but investors are cautious.
Coal is quite dirty even with tight environmental controls. Lots of workers have been killed mining it and it has enough radon in it that it has released more radioactive material than all our power plants combined. We would do better with nuclear power and electric cars than with synfuel. And the technology is ready to go.
Dilbert,
Please note the U.S. produces more electricity from nuclear power than does France, even though we get only 20% of our electrical power from nuclear. We simply have a lot more people and use a lot more electricity.
Sick,
Are we sure there is a net energy return on biodiesel? More energy may go into producing a gallon than is returned when the gallon is used. What is the true cost of a gallon as compared to oil? It has always seemed to me that no matter what oil cost biodiesel is about 20% more.
CanaAnglican, please don’t fall back to the ‘gross number is the same as percent’ canard.
Accepting your numbers, the US generates it’s 20% of nuclear electricity very roughly as carbon dioxide neutrally as France generates it’s 80% of nuclear electricity. If follows that while France’s remaining 20% of non-nuclear electricity derived from carbon polluting coal/gas/oil, the US contributes coal/gas/oil carbon dioxide pollution to the tune of it’s 80% of non-nuclear electricity. And since France has a population about 1/5 that of the US population, the US actually contributes carbon dioxide to the environment at a quantity about 20 times that of France in absolute terms, if we assume both countries have roughly equivalent non-nuclear electricity generating technology.
If carbon is a big deal to you, you should be a big fan of nuclear power generated electricity.
I wonder who stopped us from getting the trillion gallons of oil from the Colorado shales and the billions of gallons from ANWAR, and for goodness sake there’s all that oil that is off the coast that soon other countries’ oil rigs will be sucking from the ocean floor…….just wonder who voted not to allow that and thereby ensure our increased dependence on mid-easter oil?
Dilbert,
Did you see what I wrote to Don? ‘We would do better with nuclear power and electric cars than with synfuel. And the technology is ready to go.’ Of course I am in favor of replacing all coal fired generating plants with nuclear. Almost all technologists are. The point of all this was to rebut the notion that the U.S. has made no investment in the technology of energy production. We know how to do it technologically — the barriers today are political.
The U.S. generates more electric power with nuclear than does any other country. That was my point. We invested in the technology. We did it first, we know how to do it, and we should do more of it. It makes sense from every technical angle to increase this level by 400% to about the 80% of need level since some non-nuclear generation is needed for peak load leveling.
How will we get passed the politicians? the NIMBY?
Orthodox,
Oil from shale is very expensive. Not only would gasoline produced from it be more expensive than now, it would increase the carbon footprint owing to all the energy needed to mine and process the shale, and the fact we would still be burning oil. It could cause other large environmental problems due to water usage and run-off. The water required for significant levels of production are quite high and out west there is almost no water left that is not already dedicated to some use.
Drilling for new oil supplies is a great idea except the CO2 problem will remain, and we should be addressing that with great vigor. We need to have nuclear electricity for powering cars sooner not later.
Best wishes to all, –Stan
There are good environmental reasons to oppose continued oil drilling.
Plainly, this means a lifestyle change for most Americans. I’ve started riding my bike around much more – even down to the train station.
There is no single panacea. No doubt we should invest in Nuclear Power – if we go the way France did – by not making any short cuts. Of course we should invest in wind power – perhaps off shore. But CanaAnglican isn’t quite correct – for the oil companies own lots of the patents of new technologies and its not in their interest to invest in establishing them. We’ve also been cutting lots of money in environmental programs. To our misfortune.
The same environmental reasons that opposed the Alaskan Pipeline, John? It seems to me that the success of that venture should have silenced the opposition to drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico.
The most serious environmental damage was done via ship accidents, not drilling, even offshore. And double-hulled ships are even making those rarer, as is increased vigilence of the captains, and computerized steering/navigational technology that practically reduces steering to operating a joystick.
No, technology can counter the environmental concerns, for all but the most wacko of the environmental groups.
As for ANWR, I liked the analogy given by one pundit. Picture a football field. That’s ANWR. Now place a postage stamp on the 20 yard line (either one). That’s the drilling area.