sooo....what'cha gonna get with your refund?

[windsurfer]

NO, NO, NO!!! Don't you guys get it? Trying to make yourself independant of the grid is EXPENSIVE and a waste of resources. To make PV and Wind work on a single home scale requires expensive storage and over-capacity. Solar and wind can be used in ADDITION to the regular grid with a two-way electric meter. Most of your electricity is generated when the grid most needs it (during the day) and you put it into the grid during those hours. Your home then uses from the grid at night when there is a huge over-capacity on the system. You don't need the batteries and can get by with a smaller system. In addition you can pretty easily drop your energy usage with some passive solar technologies to generate hot water and heat (which CAN be stored without batteries). In the end you've saved usage and money.

[NewbieX]

Bush could make a stop gap measure and set the max prices for anything he wants. Hell, the federal reserve sets the price of money, which is arguably more important than energy, food, shelter, etc. There are a number of federal agencies with this power, depending on the commodity we're talking about. That's what Davis wants him to do but Bush has refused to invoke these powers a) the cover story is that the "market" will work it out b) the reality is the spot market energy companies are making a killing and want to continue doing so. And these guys have lunch with Bush and Co. (as they did with Clinton, etc) so often he thinks they've got family on death row.

Unfortunately, the market won't work this out without a serious change, since the ultimate consumers do not have choice of supplier at this time. Just like Dean says, without a viable alternative people have to pay Edison, Enron, Peak, whoever. Without competition, the market is more of a federal subsidy than a market. Oh horror, state sanctioned businesses, sounds awful familiar to one of Dean's favorite boggeymen. But it will never work if you treat it like a market on one side and a subsidy on the other.

And if you really think there aren't loads of alternatives to oil in many of the capacities that we use it, go to the grocery store and pick up a 1/2 gallon of "Silk" Soy Milk. On the label is the story of how Henry Ford used a bushel of soybeans to make plastic (oil) and fabric (oil) used in the Model T over 60 years ago.

So it's not that the technologies aren't there or that oil is just superior, it's that there are some very powerful and "persuasive" (if you get my drift) individuals who really like the status quo and think that Senator X or President Y should too.

And the soybean, the industrial hemp plant (plastic, energy, fabric, etc) the photovoltaic cells, the geothermals and the hydrokinetics of all different stripes don't have such persuasive lobbyists because they aren't sitting on the top of the heap yet. It's rather ridiculous that our system of government and economy combines to create a situation where past success and progress combines to hinder further success and progress. I now refer you to microsoft, GM, immigration policy, the justice system and the grand daddy of them all (that keeps all this **** rolling along uphill) campaign finance.

It can be improved. But the American people have to escape static thinking, media manipulation, personality voting and so many other things that just clog up what was supposed to be gov't by and for the people.

[lymon]

I spent mine 6 months ago

When you calculate the cost of renewable energy, remember that the cost of producing grid energy includes the hidden subsidy (via taxes) of defending countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from invasion. Solar panels can last 20 years; who wants to predict what a kw will be worth in 2021? Solar (wind, hydro) stand alone systems also ruthlessly demand conservation.
You can spend more than $10K having lines run to a rural home- to earn the privilege of paying a monthly bill.

[DeaninMilwaukee]

"Bush could make a stop gap measure and set the max prices for anything he wants. "

I think we've established here that there is no good alternative to using oil at this time, (especially for vehicles where energy desnsity/pound is so important), therefore it is an issue of supply.

Explain how capping selling prices stimulates production.
Its easy to see how it could stop conservation, (go ahead and buy that big SUV Clem, fuel prices will never go up!), and how all incentive for new exploration and drilling goes away, (why invest more money when you have no chance of getting it back.), but not how it will stimulate production.

Goverment companies simply don't work. All the ruthlesness and brutality the USSR could bring to bear could'nt make their goverment companies even make production quota's, but you think our wishy washy politicians can make it work. Even the power hungry Dems don't try to put the goverment finger into their most important goverment function, tax collection. They leave it to a private firm, the IRS.

[wildcat1949]

Put it in the bank. Use it to help pay this years tax........wild

[BillM]

I plan to use mine to offset the 23% school tax increase our local school directors have deemed a necessity. Seems they feel we need a new school to house the 168 students we no longer have in the district.

[Gerald]

...

[NewbieX]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
"Bush could make a stop gap measure and set the max prices for anything he wants. "

I think we've established here that there is no good alternative to using oil at this time, (especially for vehicles where energy desnsity/pound is so important), therefore it is an issue of supply.

Explain how capping selling prices stimulates production.
Its easy to see how it could stop conservation, (go ahead and buy that big SUV Clem, fuel prices will never go up!), and how all incentive for new exploration and drilling goes away, (why invest more money when you have no chance of getting it back.), but not how it will stimulate production.

Goverment companies simply don't work. All the ruthlesness and brutality the USSR could bring to bear could'nt make their goverment companies even make production quota's, but you think our wishy washy politicians can make it work. Even the power hungry Dems don't try to put the goverment finger into their most important goverment function, tax collection. They leave it to a private firm, the IRS.

What do you think the deregulated power system in California is? It's a government subsidized business, because consumers do not have choice. It's a market between the energy producers and the utility company, but it's a subsidy between the consumer and utility company. I'm not arguing that government run companies work, I'm arguing that you have to make a choice. Either something is a government service or a private service, can't go halfway.

And the gas business is subsidized as well, or don't they build roads with public money anymore. An aircraft carrier costs alot to maintain, but not nearly as much as having nothing to hold over OPEC's head. And last I checked the government still runs the Navy.

Much of the oil we use is made into plastic, for which there are many alternatives, but the oil lobby is very powerful and prevents this.

And electric/hybrid vehicles, while unpopular, can be used quite well for some needs. Look around some liberal strongholds like Boulder, CO. More solar homes, electric cars, windmills and natural gas buses than you can shake a stick at. But the gas and auto companies don't want us to know that.

I think we agree on this generally, but when the gov't obviously supports and defends an industry, creating future problems and screwing consumers, I'll call it exactly what it is rather than making weak excuses, for inexcusable behavior.

Clinton and Bush (and all Presidents) have used their power to quell strikes, to subsidize industries or individual companies or to completely flout market forces (such as in emergency situations like a hurricane).

The craziest thing is this "market mantra" that basically states the market will correct itself, the market is always right-except when it isn't. How easily some conservatives are able to forget the Chrysler bailout, a ten year old oil war, an S&L scam or Billions given to Lockheed and Martin-Marietta, during their merger. The rationale was that the merger would end up saving the gov't money, so why not make this quarter look real good to ensure shareholder support for the merger.

Go ask the FCC who owns the airwaves and then ask them who makes the profits. It appears that public and private are not nearly as separate as the conservative "market mantra" stance proposes. That this rationale is used to ensure record profits for the petroleum industry isn't really a suprise, but it's still rather ridiculous given the danger it poses and the cost it imposes on consumers.

[NewbieX]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
"Bush could make a stop gap measure and set the max prices for anything he wants. "

I think we've established here that there is no good alternative to using oil at this time, (especially for vehicles where energy desnsity/pound is so important), therefore it is an issue of supply.

Explain how capping selling prices stimulates production.
Its easy to see how it could stop conservation, (go ahead and buy that big SUV Clem, fuel prices will never go up!), and how all incentive for new exploration and drilling goes away, (why invest more money when you have no chance of getting it back.), but not how it will stimulate production.

Goverment companies simply don't work. All the ruthlesness and brutality the USSR could bring to bear could'nt make their goverment companies even make production quota's, but you think our wishy washy politicians can make it work. Even the power hungry Dems don't try to put the goverment finger into their most important goverment function, tax collection. They leave it to a private firm, the IRS.

I was talking about the California Power system, not really about gas. Actually, we pay a pretty low price for gas, yet there is still an awful lot of profit in it. If caps were set at like $1.50 regular, there would still be plenty of money to go around assuming OPEC stayed afraid of the USS Nimitz and assuming that domestic production stayed near current levels.

This would be bad from a conservation POV, but I think a company (Exxon Mobil) that had 8 Billion in net profits in '99 and more in 2000 (SEC yet to release numbers) and more in 2001 (SEC yet to release numbers), can probably handle the expense of a few exploration rigs, some scientists and a truck, maybe even a geographic information system or two.

Why do Exxon and Texaco and Chevron buy from OPEC, because it's still cheaper than domestic production. The Turks and Africans and Filipinos and other immigrant laborers that work oil jobs in Saudi and Kuwait and UEA don't demand the same type of pay and benefits that American workers do.

$1.40 to $1.80 isn't really a cause for the Prez to step in, but I think the argument could be made that something should be done to help California out of a bind they created with a dereg plan that didn't quite finish the job.

I've always kinda wondered about those "businesses" we have where there is no choice. Phone company, power company, water company, airport, etc. Like I said, the separation between private and public is not nearly as neat and clean as some would assume. A company that is a) already enjoying or quickly creating monopoly power b) subsidized by the gov't, isn't really acting according to strict market forces anyway. Claiming supply/demand in this situation denies so much about the reality of this situation, it's like claiming that poor kids could go to private school if they had an extra $1500.

[logan5]

sigh .... it was such an inocent question and now it's been turned into a political debate....

logan5

[Mark Wood]

Hang in there, Logan5. After 100 posts or so the discussion usually loops back to where it started. Kinda like fashions if you want to wait 30 years to wear those bell bottoms you've had stashed in the closet.

mw

[NipponDave]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
...Remember, the goverment can't waste what it does'nt have.

Yes, it can. The government has spent a huge sums of money that it didn't have. These borrowed funds have enriched Americans, big and small, for years.

There is no surplus until, aside from productive cap investment, the public debt is zero.

Government irresponsibily is the child of personal. Don't blame the politicians - they belong to us and we are responsible for the accounting of their actions.

I'm staggered by the pie-in-the-sky, play-today-pay-tomorrow attitude which prevails now. I always voted republican because I thought they had more fiscal sense - now it's clear that they're just stupid in a different way.

Oh, yeah, Eclipse 7!

[DeaninMilwaukee]

"There is no surplus until, aside from productive cap investment, the public debt is zero. "

According to the Dem party line, only increasing taxes 6% this year instead of the planned 7% is actually a spending cut.

I guess all the doobie smoking these people did in college musta affected their math skills.

[John Zook]

.......Does that mean that all the alcohol and cocaine abuse George Bush did, explains his irrational thought patterns?

[NipponDave]

Originally posted by DeaninMilwaukee:
According to the Dem party line, only increasing taxes 6% this year instead of the planned 7% is actually a spending cut.

I'm no democrat, but I just have to wonder where this stuff comes from. Who's talking about increasing taxes????