Comments on: Obama’s Energy Plan: Data Dismisses Doubters

By: Clay

Clay — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:25:06 +0000

Your blog hasn’t dismissed my doubts. You show an increase at investments in new energy, but European models have shown disappointments with overall output. I have seen many reports that show California’s pay far more per capita than the quote you used.

By: Lucien Beauley

Lucien Beauley — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:45:01 +0000

As I mentioned many times…Let’s begin a “Manhatten” ,or “Apollo” type program with a different name and do it. In a few years we will look back and say, “Yes we could.”
With Global Warming on many people’s minds, do we have any ideas of the best way to lessen the impact on our future, or maybe a possible relief of its possible ravages or even a possible key to its eventual reversal. Many scientific experts have proposed

Solar Power: Source of Endless Energy

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:37:56 +0000

Yes and do you realize that California receives a good amount of power from other states using coal power??? This way it makes it look like they are green.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:30:19 +0000

Well, California may be broke – I’m not sure where the idea that we’re having brownouts comes from. Perhaps someone that doesn’t live in California?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:49:42 +0000

You do realize California is broke, and it’s citizens experience regular brownouts, right?

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:02:35 +0000

I agree. We do need to focus on what needs to be done, and just do it!

By: drklassen

drklassen — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:06:12 +0000

The only reason alternative energy is less competitive in the market is because the current energy forms (coal and oil) do not have to pay the full costs of bringing their product to market, whereas wind and solar do. That is, energy is not a free market.

Oil companies get vast subsidies; they get to lease public lands or buy them at a prices significantly below "market value" (in that, they are the only ones bidding on the leases) and so on. Similarly for coal with the added "benefit" that they rarely have to clean up after themselves when their work has been found to have poisoned an area. Taxpayers pay for it. And all of this is before considering the cost of greenhouse gas emissions (carbon taxing).

Make them pay their way in full and we'll see just how cheap wind and solar can be.

Or better yet, we ought to just simply nationalize the entire energy production endeavor. One could argue that energy is such a necessity to basic living that to leave it up to for-profit industries, willing to turn off someones heat in the middle of winter and let them die, is the height of immorality.

Nationalize energy, mass transit and dissolve "agribusiness" in favor of "farming" and we'll see this land prosper once again.

By: Charly

Charly — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:46:52 +0000

Visit this LINK to see why 100% eficient solar panels are not far away from today.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:05:03 +0000

Alternatives are NOT inefficient and uneconomical. And don’t think for a second that the oil industry doesn’t get more than its fair share from the government.
Back in 2000, there was a Department of Energy study which found that supply disruptions, price hikes and loss of wealth suffered through oil market upheavals have cost the U.S. economy around $7 trillion (in 1998 dollars) over the thirty years from 1970 to 2000. The study focused on macroeconomic adjustment costs, the potential loss of GDP and wealth transfer. What it didn’t include, however, were the military, strategic and political costs associated with U.S. and world dependence on oil imports. These costs, however, were recognized by a former Reagan White House alum and 12-year member of the National Petroleum Council, Milton Copulos.
After taking into account the direct and indirect costs of oil, the economic costs of oil supply disruption and military expenditures, he estimated the true cost of oil at around $480 a barrel.
Of course we can’t forget the subsidies either. While Big Oil sympathizers like to call out the renewable energy industry for being reliant upon subsidies, they do a great job at keeping their own subsidies well-hidden.
A study by the International Center for Technology Assessment analyzed petroleum industry subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance and tax-funded programs that directly subsidize oil production and consumption.
It assessed up to $17.8 billion per year in tax subsidies, plus government program subsidies (such as R&D programs and environmental cleanup) of between $38 billion and $114.6 billion per year.
Just something to think about the next time you want to question the economic and environmental superiority of renewable energy.
The days of misinformation reigning are over. If you want to be a part of the solution, then great. If not, enjoy the view as we move forward.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:04:17 +0000

alternatives are NOT inefficient and uneconomical. And don’t think for a second that the oil industry doesn’t get more than its fair share from the government.
Back in 2000, there was a Department of Energy study which found that supply disruptions, price hikes and loss of wealth suffered through oil market upheavals have cost the U.S. economy around $7 trillion (in 1998 dollars) over the thirty years from 1970 to 2000. The study focused on macroeconomic adjustment costs, the potential loss of GDP and wealth transfer. What it didn’t include, however, were the military, strategic and political costs associated with U.S. and world dependence on oil imports. These costs, however, were recognized by a former Reagan White House alum and 12-year member of the National Petroleum Council, Milton Copulos.
After taking into account the direct and indirect costs of oil, the economic costs of oil supply disruption and military expenditures, he estimated the true cost of oil at around $480 a barrel.
Of course we can’t forget the subsidies either. While Big Oil sympathizers like to call out the renewable energy industry for being reliant upon subsidies, they do a great job at keeping their own subsidies well-hidden.
A study by the International Center for Technology Assessment analyzed petroleum industry subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance and tax-funded programs that directly subsidize oil production and consumption.
It assessed up to $17.8 billion per year in tax subsidies, plus government program subsidies (such as R&D programs and environmental cleanup) of between $38 billion and $114.6 billion per year.
Just something to think about the next time you want to question the economic and environmental superiority of renewable energy.
The days of misinformation reigning are over. If you want to be a part of the solution, then great. If not, enjoy the view as we move forward.

By: bigterguy

bigterguy — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:45:49 +0000

And California’s support of ‘green technologies’ (please define!) has made it the economic envy of the world! NOT!!! ..
How much money do you think Exxon-Mobil has spent on alternative energy R&D over the past 30 years? At least $1 billion. If they, and the other oil majors, had new economically competitive energy technologies don’t you think they would be exploiting them for profit??
But the sad fact is that these alternatives are all inefficient and uneconomical compared to oil, gas and coal. Else ‘Big Oil’ would have long ago become ‘Big Windfarm’.

By: N. A.

N. A. — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:29:21 +0000

There is nothing in this article that proves anything. All of this “growth” was based on obscenely high subsidies (far, far more per KWh than any other source of power). So yes, if you gave big enough subsidies to hoolahoops, their growth would go through the roof too.
Wind, particularly, is erratic and actually causes the grid to run at less efficiency. It has been shown that in the end only a miniscule amount of CO2 is saved. Try talking to some engineers instead of fairy tale unicorn salesmen.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:28:10 +0000

“Those 100% solar cells that were mentioned here have been invented already”
Umm… no they’ve not. In fact, it’s almost physically impossible unless somehow, you can prevent the radiation of heat and reflective light from a solar cell.

By: Ken Yeap

Ken Yeap — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:27:06 +0000

Hope 2009 will bring good luck to the world.Anyway,have you see some one look very close to Obama? I have one here!