Since energy plans are the flavor of the hour.

S

speedracer

Banned
[quote name='Ruined']McCain being pro-drilling is a HUGE point in his court at the moment, too. Blaming people or forcing people to change is the wrong approach, and one I feel is fueled by environmental activist lobbyists.[/QUOTE]
So to ask everyone:

1. What would your energy plan look like?
2. What would it fix?
3. What wouldn't it fix?
4. What's the worst part about your plan?
5. How fast does 'relief' get here?
6. What exactly does 'relief' look like?
7. Do the candidates address your issues/concerns?
 
I'm too lazy to get into question by question specifics but really to over-simplify it's a two pronged solution.

1. Reduce consumption in the short term:

-higher fuel efficiency, plug-in hybrids etc.
-do more to encourage buying efficient light bulbs, not leaving lights on when you leave a room,
-being more conservative with the thermostat,
-improve public transportation in terms of convenience and cost.
-promote/require recycling (fines in my county if you are caught putting recyclables in the trash rather than the provided recycling bins)
-etc.

Long term it's just get away from oil and coal energy

-work on hydrogen and/or developing other alternative fuels, maybe work on making better electric cars
-solar and wind power
-nuclear power
-etc

As for when the relief gets here, if you mean gas prices it really won't. $3.50-5 will be the norm from now on, maybe higher. The high prices will help spur the needed changes.

As for whether the candidates speak to my issues, Obama does to an extent. But I don't agree with all his plans--like saying today he'd tap into the oil reserves to cut prices. But I like other parts of his platform like having 1 million 150 MPG plug in hybrids on the road in 6 years, having 10% of energy from renewable sources at the end of his first term etc.

Whether he can accomplish any of it is a different story, but I like the message for the most part.
 
[quote name='speedracer']So to ask everyone:

1. What would your energy plan look like?
2. What would it fix?
3. What wouldn't it fix?
4. What's the worst part about your plan?
5. How fast does 'relief' get here?
6. What exactly does 'relief' look like?
7. Do the candidates address your issues/concerns?[/QUOTE]

I'm simply not qualified to answer most of these questions to the degree the questions suggest they require (nor do I really think anyone here is). So I can't give details on how a plan would work exactly. I can only state what I'd support or not and what I want and don't.

That being said, I simply subscribe to an "all of the above" plan for energy. I don't understand why we shouldn't both open oil exploration drilling wide open in our country as well as aggressively pursue other replacements through government incentives. I don't understand people that seem to believe it's one or the other.

I'm against anything that punishes consumers into forcing the market to change.

I'm for anything that gives INCENTIVES to company's to expedite alternate research.

I firmly believe that energy independence should/must/will anyway come before alternative energy replacement on mass scale. Because even when an alternative to oil is discovered, it will take decades to fully change all industry over to it, so we might as well make our own oil.

I am for anything that gets us energy independent asap. Energy independence is an issue that will solve so many of our nations issues in a domino and cascading effect.

The worst part about my plan is that for some reason it's hard to sell. People like extremes. They want one or the other.

Relief will get here depending on how bad people demand it. If we are content to just let gas prices slowly rise while we cross our alternative energy fingers it will take longer.

Relief looks like gas prices that stay under $4 or cars that don't take gas that are very affordable and can drive more than 80 miles.

Neither candidate addresses energy to my satisfaction.
 
1. What would your energy plan look like?

I call it the Everyone is Happy Plan. Basically, we go take over Iran, UAE, carpet bomb Iraq, and then trick Saudi Arabia into helping, but then stabbing them in the back and taking them over. Of course we'd have to reinstate the draft, but that'll be easy. If kids as young as 14 can be charged as an adult for a crime, I figure we can draft them. THE TERRORISTS USE KIDS WHY SHOULDNT WE! After that, it's just shock and awe baby. BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN! YOU KNOW WHAT IM TALKIN ABOUT!

2. What would it fix?

Pretty much everything.

3. What wouldn't it fix?

Cry baby liberals would still whine about it.

4. What's the worst part about your plan?

It would fix things so well it would cause people to compain about other things that they didn't before.

5. How fast does 'relief' get here?

3 months until mission accomplished.

6. What exactly does 'relief' look like?

Controll of 70% of the worlds oil, nuff said.

7. Do the candidates address your issues/concerns?

They wouldn't do what needs to be done.
 
[quote name='speedracer']So to ask everyone:

1. What would your energy plan look like?
2. What would it fix?
3. What wouldn't it fix?
4. What's the worst part about your plan?
5. How fast does 'relief' get here?
6. What exactly does 'relief' look like?
7. Do the candidates address your issues/concerns?[/QUOTE]

That's a lot of questions. I'll attempt a short response.

1. Allow offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR. Allow new nuclear plants. Remove all tax breaks for fossil fuel companies. Clear the way for wind power transmission (see T. Boone Pickens' plan, pretty interesting) and if necessary provide a small tax break to spur construction. Allow offshore wind farms like that blocked by Sen. Kennedy off Cape Cod. Allow development of oil shale in Utah/Colorado. Provide incentives for breakthroughs or construction of more efficient solar cells and other renewable energy. Use the money saved off not giving breaks to oil companies to accomplish these tax incentives. Release a bit of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the meantime to moderate prices and hit speculators (also making the government money since it was bought at a lower price). Political leaders should encourage conservation and couch it in national security/economic security terms.

2. Hopefully everything, although it will take time. The basic idea is that we draw more supply now and promote technologies that will wean us off imported oil in the future.

3. Gas prices aren't going down to $1.50 a gallon as soon as we implement this plan, but then again that isn't going to happen for any realistic plan anyway. I guess it is also easy for the government to mishandle it (just like everything else they attempt).

4. I guess I'd like to think up a better way to sock it to the oil companies for screwing us all over so badly over these last couple years, but I don't think a windfall profits tax will work (passed on to consumers most likely). The only way in the long run is to make us not dependent on their product.

5. Relief should arrive when SPR oil is released, and more comprehensively within a few years when new production comes online along with other resources.

6. Relief looks like lower energy prices and eventually a movement away from dependence on oil and toward a greener energy system.

7. Yes and no. Some of them yes, most of them no. Both candidates are delusional about the scope of the solution needed. It's not a quick fix or cross-your-fingers-for-something-to-happen; we are reversing decades of failed policy here.
 
I haven't had time to address this fully, but ...

The chief idea behind the energy plan is to remove the government as the chief enabler of wasteful energy use.

A. No more farm subsidies.
B. No per mile tax credit of > 44 cents per mile driven to bring goods to market.
C. No more public funds to prop up oil companies or alternative energy.
D. No more biofuel subsidies.
E. Allow the end consumer of electricity to pick how many kWh they want to buy per month from a type of energy source (coal, nuclear, landfill gas, natural gas, wind, solar, slave/animal, etc.).
 
father and elprincipe, what kind of time line would you suggest? Which parts would be immediate and which would be phased?

Sorry bout the overreaching thread everybody. Everyone seemed to have tomes to write on the subject when I made the thread. Thought it would be pounced on. Perhaps just a bit too much to digest in one sitting.

There's certainly been a downward trend the last month or so in the price of oil. I worry that we're going to take our eye off the ball on weaning ourselves off oil when the price of a gallon comes back under $3, which I think is going to happen because the producer countries and oil companies have collectively crapped themselves when the saw just how fast we came up on a future that didn't include them.

It does seem that we all so far agree that oil as a primary source needs to go in the relatively near term and that government is the way to accomplish that (if only removing subsidies).
 
[quote name='speedracer']
It does seem that we all so far agree that oil as a primary source needs to go in the relatively near term and that government is the way to accomplish that (if only removing subsidies).[/QUOTE]

That really depends on how you define "near term".

I don't believe Oil, as a primary source, can feasibly go away in less than 20 years. More likely, 30 at the soonest. And I certainly do not want to be depending on countries that hate us for that oil in that time.
 
I think 20 years is a reasonable frame for "near term".

With a free hand in government and/or the market, what would be your next move thrust and to what end?
 
[quote name='speedracer']I think 20 years is a reasonable frame for "near term".

With a free hand in government and/or the market, what would be your next move thrust and to what end?[/QUOTE]

First, taking three things into account:

1)I believe America, above all other countries, is capable of mining, refining, and delivering fossil fuels to ourselves and others in the absolute cleanest and highly environmentally regulated way never before seen.

2)There is no Oil replacement "right around the corner" yet. Because of this, there is no time frame for when we can expect a replacement. Because of this, we can't just keep doing nothing and hoping something comes up soon.

3) There is no reason why we can't pretty much completely replace fossil dependence for electricity and energy to our homes relatively soon. There ARE windmill technologies that are 6x more efficient than currently available already in proto-type. Along with this, it's relatively easy to go Nuclear, wave, or whatever else.

So given the above, I think we could switch off our dependency for coal and oil for our power supplies relatively quickly. But we'll still need oil for many industries and transportation for some time to come.

So I would allow heavily regulated drilling, domestically, while at the same time creating or enhancing several government programs that greatly reward (mostly through heavy tax breaks) any consumer or company making efforts into alternative energies. This, I believe, is better than just raising taxes and letting government "pay" for alternative energy research, because I have 0 faith in the ability of government to balance books. But I do have faith in individuals and the free market to push the envelope in energy replacement.

I have even thought about a government program that might introduce a special gas card, that is required to buy gas. This would allow the government to monitor how much gas you are buying so that if it's under a certain threshold you would get nice tax breaks come tax season (as long as you don't punish people buying OVER a threshold). I don't have the details worked out, but I'd like to see something along these lines that's cheat-proof.

I am not a big fan of hybrid cars because the incentives to have them are just not there. Their cost of ownership is high. People that drive them aren't really saving THAT MUCH money, it's just mostly a status symbol. I think our government can and should give people really good reasons to invest in such technologies. Make it so you save a substantial amount of money by buying hybrid or electrical vehicles.

The goal, if I was in charge, would be for 90% of all oil coming from within our own borders within 10 years. This would be possible because we'd totally eliminate coal/oil power plants and increase domestic oil drilling. Thereby giving the finger to countries that hate us and solving all kinds of foreign problems. I believe our country was best off when we just mostly stayed to ourselves pre-world war 2, able to only depend on ourselves.
 
[quote name='speedracer']father and elprincipe, what kind of time line would you suggest? Which parts would be immediate and which would be phased?

It does seem that we all so far agree that oil as a primary source needs to go in the relatively near term and that government is the way to accomplish that (if only removing subsidies).[/QUOTE]

As far as timelines, it's hard to tell. Since we will need to make new technological breakthroughs to fully wean ourselves from fossil fuels (and especially from foreign sources of fossil fuels), you can't really say when such breakthroughs might occur. I neglected things like biofuel subsidies in my original post, and I agree with FOC on them and other subsidies for stupid things like corn-based ethanol. Take away all the subsidies for non-renewable energy and instead subsidize the future.

In the short term, we will need to bring more oil to market to ensure our economy is not disrupted from developing the future. What we need to do with government subsidies is just to make sure that the right things are going to end up winning in the marketplace -- the right things meaning those that don't harm our economic and national security, such as sending hundreds of billions of dollars to despotic regimes overseas.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am not a big fan of hybrid cars because the incentives to have them are just not there. Their cost of ownership is high. People that drive them aren't really saving THAT MUCH money, it's just mostly a status symbol. I think our government can and should give people really good reasons to invest in such technologies. Make it so you save a substantial amount of money by buying hybrid or electrical vehicles.
[/quote]

Hybrids in their current incarnations are crap. Their batteries can push a car a whopping 4-5 miles at best. More expensive AC tech is used instead of DC tech. NiMH or Li Ion is used instead of lead acid. On top of all of that, none of the mass produced models offer a plugin capability.

An electric vehicle with a 60 mile range, a consumption of 400 Wh per mile and lead acid batteries that are gently charged to last 3 years (600 cycles) would cost 7 cents per mile if electric costs 10 cents per kWh. At $4.00 per gallon of gas, that is on par with 57mpg. At the end of 3 years, the batteries could be replaced and mostly (>99%) recycled. If car is consistently going to be driven more than 60 miles a day, a small gas car makes more sense than even the best hybrid.
 
Even 57 MPG would probably not be enough savings to offset the extra cost over a regular car that got 30-35 MPG.

That's the main problem with hybrids is the added cost over regular cars make you have to drive them crazy amounts to offset the added cost through savings in gas.

A plug in that got 57 MPG would offset the cost faster, but it would probably still take a few years and it's tough for most people to swallow the extra cost up front if they new it will take a few years for the investment to pay for itself.

If these things are going to take off fast after coming out it will probably take a big tax incentive or government rebate to knock off the price difference between them and regular cars. If a families budget is strapped from gas costs, ditching their car and buying a more expensive plug in hybrid isn't going to do much in the short term as with no rebate etc. it's just shifting the cost from gas to the monthly car payment.
 
Ick. I can't find the wet lead acid batteries anymore. The closest are SLA and AGMs for $3000 retail. That drops the MPG equivalence to 33MPG before factoring in savings on oil changes and radiator flushings. I don't know how long those batteries last compared to the wet version. If they last for 6 years, the savings on oil changes and misc ICE maintenance can get the MPG equivalence near 57 again. Oddly enough, their energy density is around 38 Wh/kg instead of the 18 Wh/kg I've been using for calculations.
 
I'm not diving into politics, but doesn't off-shore drilling seem like it would solve most of our problems? We have 1 TRILLION gallons of oil waiting for us. Not only would gas prices plummit, but WE would be in control of the world's oil. We could build a monopoly, just like the middle eastern countries have done.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I'm not diving into politics, but doesn't off-shore drilling seem like it would solve most of our problems? We have 1 TRILLION gallons of oil waiting for us. Not only would gas prices plummit, but WE would be in control of the world's oil. We could build a monopoly, just like the middle eastern countries have done.[/QUOTE]

First, not sure where you're getting the 1 trillion number from. Link please, that's much higher than any estimate I've seen.

As for solving all our problems, not really. It still is a finite resource and world usage of that finite resource is growing. More production simply staves off the day by which we must have a replacement -- which is why we need more production, but why we also need a replacement. Of course, there are other reasons why a replacement is beneficial, such as environmental reasons.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Pelosi has the answer.

"I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels."[/QUOTE]

LOL, when did she say that? Usually her lies are intentional.
 
[quote name='docvinh']A somewhat related article to the topic at hand:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Any thoughts?[/quote]

Actually, it is quite related.

Answer: Produce local and use local. Pushing 1000 MWh through somebody else's power lines is a deal breaker and kills "green" power. The owner of those lines probably generates power and doesn't appreciate somebody horning in on their racket. When I start dabbling in the energy production game, I'm going to start small with solar rooftops and small wind turbines. The powers that be will be less likely to crush me if I can slip through their fingers and toes.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Who is Blinky?

Where is the word Catholic anywhere on that page?

Find function didn't find it.[/QUOTE]

"Blinky" is Pelosi - part of the nickname is from a video of a Bush SOTU address where she blinks her eyes quite a bit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0O0wl_UaU8

Also, it refers to the theory that a person who is lying has a heightened blink rate.

The Catholic stuff is on the second or third page of the transcript.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']She also describes herself as an "ardent, practicing Catholic". That's a complete laugh.[/QUOTE]

Evidently she's also convinced herself that the Catholic Church is undecided on abortion. :roll:
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Evidently she's also convinced herself that the Catholic Church is undecided on abortion. :roll:[/QUOTE]

So I suppose catholics that use birth control all deserve the :roll: huh?

There are plenty of people in every religion and denomination who don't agree with many of the tenets of it--they just stick with it as they were raised on it.

I can see how you'd think that's a stupid thing to do, but it's just the way it is. It's tough for anyone to subscribe to every tenet of their faith as you pretty much have to be a fundamentalists to follow everything in the bible etc.
 
If you're not this guy, then STFU with regards to who is or is not literally Christian, let alone Catholic.

Most Catholics these days don't attend a Latin mass. If you're of the mindset that the Vatican II was a bunch of capitulating nancy-boy bullshit that diluted the dogma and ideology of the church, then we're all pretty much shitty Catholics.

Me? I've got a stocked bar, a guilt complex, and a ruthless Irish grandmother. I win at Catholocism.
 
The Athabasca_Oil_Sands are said to have 170 billion barrels of oil up in Canada. And USA has over 600 yrs of Coal left. We'll do offshore drilling to complement those but nothing revolutionary will occur within the next 10 years. SUVs will continue to drop in #s and $, and hopefully engineers will make everything more efficient as oil prices will stay around the same. I dont think the government can, or should, force any new tech into production so we'll let Europe, Japan or most likely Israel take the first step towards electric cars (or whatever) and then follow suit 20 years after them.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']So I suppose catholics that use birth control all deserve the :roll: huh?

There are plenty of people in every religion and denomination who don't agree with many of the tenets of it--they just stick with it as they were raised on it.

I can see how you'd think that's a stupid thing to do, but it's just the way it is. It's tough for anyone to subscribe to every tenet of their faith as you pretty much have to be a fundamentalists to follow everything in the bible etc.[/QUOTE]

You are entirely missing the point. I could care less if Catholics follow their religion or not. But don't lie about the positions of the Catholic Church to justify your political positions.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If you're not this guy, then STFU with regards to who is or is not literally Christian, let alone Catholic.

Most Catholics these days don't attend a Latin mass. If you're of the mindset that the Vatican II was a bunch of capitulating nancy-boy bullshit that diluted the dogma and ideology of the church, then we're all pretty much shitty Catholics.

Me? I've got a stocked bar, a guilt complex, and a ruthless Irish grandmother. I win at Catholocism.[/QUOTE]

See above post. I don't give a shit about if she's a good Catholic or not, but I abhor the lying and rationalizing.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']See above post. I don't give a shit about if she's a good Catholic or not, but I abhor the lying and rationalizing.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about the lying part (don't know enough about what she said), but pretty much everyone but fundamentalists have to do some rationalizing to practice their faith as pretty much no one but fundamentailists will ever agree with every tenet of their faith/denomination.

I never came close to any, so I've happily been religion free for 15 years. Though of course that decsion was made more on just never being able to buy into the idea of supreme being, afterlife etc. rather than anything to do with religion as practiced.
 
Ok first off people in this topic ignore the facts that alternative energy is in its baby step stages. People act like just because now with it just starting to receive funding and attention its not the best option that it wont be. If we actually invested heavily in alteranative energy and science within 10 years we WOULD have energy efficient cars and homes that would make the days we live in now seem ancient. You can argue all you want that it cant happan but people said the same thing about landing on the moon....and I gurantee 10 years ago few of you would have had the foresight to see broad band and HDTV in every home, nor the breakthrough gadgets like phones with digital wall displays coming in the next year or 2.

Second off the idea that oil is going to solve our problems, and American oil is a joke. Im not against American oil, im just smart enough to realize no one in the industry without oil ties believes that there is that much oil in the US. Even on Fox freaking news whenever I watch the business section(which I do daily)and they have analysts talking is it suggested that drilling for oil is a solution to our problems. At best we will see gas drop a few cents if the market doesnt overreact and a few dozen cents if it does. And the oil we would get out of the US would only drop our dependency a small amount.

As usual the moderates are the only people that seem to be smart enough to figure this out. We need things like drilling both to last us and show the world we are serious about oil dependency and also to appease the far right to get legislation passed. However we also need lots of new green energy science being moved forward. Not only will this get us off of oil faster then any of you seem to realize it will create millions of new jobs. Its amazing that even the far right is starting to realize that even if the lefts overblowing how fast it is happening....America and our economy/middle class dream are falling backwards. Yet people still hold on to the idea that we need to keep doing the same thing we have been doing for years. Try to drill our way out of problems and run scared in the opposite direction of science.

I dont understand what some of you have against science. If we duck our heads in the sand and "leave it to Europe and Japan" all thats gonna happan is America is going to loose all those great jobs and all that money to them. Yes it will cost American tax payers and business alot of money, but in the long run it will make us far more.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't know about the lying part (don't know enough about what she said)[/QUOTE]

Here you go. Keep in mind the Catholic Church has had a consistent position of abortion being murder and a sin throughout its history.

[quote name='Nancy Pelosi']“… I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition … St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose,”[/quote]

Here's an article to look at too: http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/08/27/pelosis-abortion-comments-provoke-catholic-criticism/

The bottom line is Pelosi is telling a baldfaced lie when it comes to the Catholic Church and abortion. But what else is new.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Here you go. Keep in mind the Catholic Church has had a consistent position of abortion being murder and a sin throughout its history.[/quote]
The Catholic church hasn't had a consistent position on anything in their entire history.

From your link:
“Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”
Click to expand...
I've always wondered why Sodomites are given a pass but abortion creates the stir. Judge not, no one gets to the father but through me, let he who is without sin... yadda yadda. Sitting in mass, I always wondered why the good priest never got up and said "God killed an entire city for sodomy. If you've had a dick in your mouth this week, no sacrament for you."

Consistency. Catholicism. What a joke.

Isn't it interesting that the Dems have had Catholics in 2 of the 4 nominated positions in the last two elections (counting this one)?
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Ok first off people in this topic ignore the facts that alternative energy is in its baby step stages. [/quote]

No, it is not.

There are dozens of large wind power projects producing electricity at or near current market prices.

Solar shingles are a big step that have put solar energy past the baby stage.

10-20 year old battery technology can satisfy the daily range needs for anybody driving less than 120 miles a day.

Using alternative energy doesn't mean you have a lower standard of living, just a cleaner one.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']No, it is not.

There are dozens of large wind power projects producing electricity at or near current market prices.

Solar shingles are a big step that have put solar energy past the baby stage.

10-20 year old battery technology can satisfy the daily range needs for anybody driving less than 120 miles a day.

Using alternative energy doesn't mean you have a lower standard of living, just a cleaner one.[/QUOTE]

True that its doing great things already. We agree....I was posting for the nay sayers. Besides it is still in its baby steps. Yes its doing those great things already, but only after great investment and not as efficiently as it will in 10 years let alone 50. Green Energy is still in its baby steps.
 
It's in baby steps in terms of adoption, but the technology is mostly there and improving. Electric cars are the one lagging, fine for daily commuting for most people but the range limits are a kicker for those of us that take longer trips often or people with very long commutes. But their should be a push to get them on the market for people who just need a car for commutes within the ranges.

The thing holding back is really price on most things. It's expensive to put solar panels on a house etc. Saves money in the long run, but a lot of people just can't afford to buy and install a solar system. So getting costs down will be a big part of it, as well as doing something to encourage new homes, condo buildings etc. to be build with solar panels. Significant tax breaks/rebates to the development company, home owner building their own house etc. would help.
 
[quote name='speedracer']The Catholic church hasn't had a consistent position on anything in their entire history.[/quote]

Obviously you haven't read up on this issue.

Isn't it interesting that the Dems have had Catholics in 2 of the 4 nominated positions in the last two elections (counting this one)?
Click to expand...

Meh, I don't really care.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
The thing holding back is really price on most things. It's expensive to put solar panels on a house etc. Saves money in the long run, but a lot of people just can't afford to buy and install a solar system. So getting costs down will be a big part of it, as well as doing something to encourage new homes, condo buildings etc. to be build with solar panels. Significant tax breaks/rebates to the development company, home owner building their own house etc. would help.[/quote]

Over the course of 20 years, solar power costs 40 cents per kWh. That's ridiculously high considering most electricity costs
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
A roof solar power system serves a dual purpose: a roof. Since a person didn't have to buy roofing shingles, a person has reduced the cost of the system by 1-10 cents per kWh. [/quote]

It's definitely easier for someone building a new house. But it's an added cost just for the sake of solar power with someone who already has a house with roofing that's in fine condition.


If someone were to suffer the maintenance costs of a 6-12 year old car ($100-200 per month) instead of make payments for a 0-6 year old car ($400-500 per month), the system is within reach of any home owner.
Click to expand...

Unreasonable sacrifice that most of us aren't going to make. My last two cars have been bought new, and any future cars I have will be bought new. I'm not going to drive old cars for the sake of saving the environment.

But of course, when I'm done with grad school I will hopefully be making enough money in a few years that I won't have to make sacrifices like that if I wanted to go solar.

But for most families, they couldn't and they aren't going drive old cars and make other cut backs to their luxury spending to go solar unless something drastic happens with the costs of electric. Which still aren't bad at all IMO.


[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_go_co/disappearing_tax_breaks

I hate whining like this.

"Give me money or my business will fail."

How about running a business where you can make money without handouts?[/QUOTE]


While I generally agree with that line of thinking, it's tough with alternative energy.

People and companies aren't going to make financial sacrifices for the sake of the environment. So the alternative is tax breaks to make it feasible in the short term and speed up adoption of alternative energy or let the market take it's course and let it take however long it takes for alternative energy to become more profitable for businesses dealing in it and more affordable for end users.

So it's do we want to give hand outs, especially to end users, to speed up development? Or do we just want to wait and see how long it takes such things to come to the forefront through strict capitalism?

Personally, I care about getting off middle east oil, and want to see whatever done on that front. I care less about energy here (aside from places that use oil heating) as I'm not as concerned about the environmental issues with coal etc. as I am dependency on foreign oil. Point being I think we can take more time with nuclear power, wind power, solar powe etc. and just preach conservation in the meantime. But oil is a pressing concern and we need to do what we can to get alternative powered cars on the market and in consumers driveways and garages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top