Neither of the big two alternatives, wind and solar, are “the” solution, but wind is doing much better than people might think (ignore the lefty drivel and look here at the facts about startup stats, in particular — link below), and as has been explained, solar is a matter of refinement rather than basics as this time, and so merits more federal R&D and (compromise with conservatives) assistance if so decided.

This is under Bush-Cheney, mind you.

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/news/2008/598.html

I don't know if that's truly so, Neocon, but it's instructive (though I already knew and predicted this, yet it remains useful and entertaining nevertheless). Lefties have had an awful habit since the 1960s of hating automobility (the the worst, most fundamental sense, because it confers liberty whereas collective transportion entails submittal to effective coersion and a forced “choice” to lower one's standard of living in the USA). They have routinely lied and said our prices have been “too low” [sic] or “artificially low” [sic] because they are not so very high as in Europe, where fuels are so highly taxed. But of course they are the first, foremost, loudest to complain once fuel prices, which affect everyone in so many ways, climb to what are widely seen as painful levels. The demands will start getting large on the Dem side for release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — what the Dems did in 2000 — even though once it happens the Dems will attack the GOP for this being done.

You cannot win with the irrational. They can only be exploited, which the Dems have done since the 1930s and especially since the 1960s.

The obvious thing to do in the short term is get ready to convert coal to existing transportation fuels (gasoline, Diesel fuel, aviation fuels), for which there are no magic substitutes, despite what the kiddies may want and even, sadly, believe. Any rational, logical plan by Obama would “push” this coal-to-liquids effort. What will he and his administration do?

“The problem I have with McCain is that he supports oil drilling.”

That makes him normal and on the correct side of this issue! Why object??? !!!

Oil companies aren't going to give up profits for the sake of the environment. Oil companies are in the business to make money and please shareholders. Soaring oil/gasoline prices will continue to guarantee those profits. Alternative energy does not offer those same profits. Electricity produced by wind, solar, etc. can not be stored and shipped overseas. There is no “global” market for electricity the same way there is a global market for gasoline and oil. So oil companies can only supplement their earnings with alternative energy.

I don't think I'm baching oil companies so much as pointing out the reality. Would you buy stock in a company that said it was going to begin reducing earnings (and those earnings would gradually be reduced over a number of years while they switched to less profitable products) because they wanted to do something good for the environment?

I'm all for companies making money. Though I do look askance at oil companies because they are making billions in profits, which is good for their shareholders, but those profits are made on a product which everyone needs and everyone will be forced to pay higher prices. Even if oil demand goes down because some people cut back because they can't afford a full tank of gas, those profits are made up by the increasing prices. Oil was profitable to oil companies at $20/bbl. The costs to oil companies hasn't risen that much in the last ten years… Now oil is $120-$125/bbl. All that extra is profit. And so the oil companies can grease the palms of politicians to make sure that oil continues as the main source of energy for this country.

I pretty much agree that the cost of gasoline and oil is the number one threat to our security which is why we need to start reducing our reliance on oil and gas. No way can it even happen in four or five years. All I'm saying is that we can't rely on the beneficence of oil companies. They will do what is in their best self-interests.

Your post started out so positively and then turned to trashing the oil companies.

The chairman of Exxon gave a speech awhile back in which he predicted that the major income for Exxon Mobile in 20 years would be oil and gas. He essentially informed his stockholders that the dynamics of oil and gas in this nation will not change that much in the next 20 years and that Exxon/Mobile is not interested in developing alternatives to add to their energy portfolio.

I understand the reticence people hold to the oil industry but not all Oil is represented by Exxon. The fact of the matter is that I hope McCain will balance the budget, pay down the debt and get us drilling.

The fear by those on the left of this issue seems to be not that it wont work, but that it WILL work. And if it does then the price comes down and once again alternatives are put off till tomorrow. I share that fear with you. However in the short term I fear more for the solvency of this nation then I do for global warming.

I don't think people understand truly the pickle we are in with a 10 trillion dollar debt, 600 billion upcoming deficit and still fighting two wars while Oil and gas is climbing and taking away disposable income so that we are not paying taxes on other things.

The longer gasoline remains high, the longer we are paying to fix roads but we are losing tax revenue because people are buying gasoline and not buying other things that have taxes that are used for other things. If the economy shrinks, the budget defict grows.

Gasoline prices is the number one threat to our national security. If you pretend we can put it off for 4 or 5 years till we can build a bunch of electric cars or that it will force 100 million people to walk to work then you are all dreaming. West of the Mississippi, most of the people live way to far to ride a bike or walk to work.

There are serious dynamics at play here and the prevailing attitude is that we can just borrow till we have solved the energy crisis. We cannot.

I think if done correctly alternative energy solves various problems. First, if we develop it here in the US, it creates jobs and is good for the economy. We can export our knowledge to other countries.

Second, it addresses environmental problems. Clean energy (wind, solar, geo) means no oil spills.

Third, it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Guess what everyone? Oil and gas will continue to go up over the long term.

The problem I have with McCain is that he supports oil drilling. And gets a lot of money form the oil industry so he's in bed with them. We all know how the oil industry shaped environmental policy under Bush. Under McCain it will only continue. The problems, environmental, costs, etc. we have now with oil drilling, etc. will only continue under McCain. I say that for several reasons.

McCain is not committed to “alternative energy” in the same way he is to oil. I bet you that the alternative energy solutions he supports would be similar to T. Boone Pickens…. (and there's nothing wrong with that). But the problem is that if the alternative energy development reduces the profits oil companies receive, then which do you think McCain will do choose first? The oil or the alternative energy route? In other words the oil industry is thinking like the auto industry. Some token alternative energy projects, just enough to show Americans that something is being done (like that Geo Metro) but their main profits are oil and gasoline. And since oil/gas prices will continue to increase the energy companies want to maximize their profits, at the expense of the economy, environment and on the backs of Americans.

So I'm not opposed to offshore drilling strictly because of environmental concerns (though that is one reason). I am opposed to offshore drilling because it does nothing to wean us off our dependency on oil. And even if we started replacing foreign oil/gas with offshore drilling tomorrow, the prices are set in the global market place and those prices are only going to rise. Unless we adopt a strong US dollar policy (oil/gas is traded in US dollars so as the dollar falls, the price of oil goes up) and take other actions.

I'm against Obama touting offshore drilling. Not because I would view him as a flip flopper (if he adopts a sensible policy, regardless of the issue, then good for him). I'm against Obama flip flopping because I think Obama had offshore drilling right the first time and his flip flop will truly be a flip flop for the wrong reasons- for political purposes only. Unless he can somehow convince me that he's not flip flopping for political purposes and that there is a real benefit to offshore drilling.

Besides Obama's supporters on the left and Obama's opponents on the right would label him a flipflopper over this. I would too unless he could convince me of the benefit of offshore drilling. The independents would just see him as another politician willing to say anything to get elected. Though I think that all (or most) of Obama's supporters would not leave him over this. But if he starts down this flipflopping road, then what's next?

Fair enough, George. Should you wish to be “dismissed” you make a good case for it. So, given your answer, even though I took the time to present detailed responses to your complaints, this is essentially all you have to say.

So you stand by your characterization that my use of the awful word “would” four time, I live in a fantasyland, even if one of them was how I, myself, WOULD feel in a given situation. Thanks for clearing that up. It tells me a lot.

You feel that my assuming that GOP partisans would label Obama's reconsideration of domestic drilling a “flipflop” is a fantasy, eh? Thanks for checking in on that. I don't know what I was thinking. Obviously that's so unlikely as to be laughable. I'm sure the Republicans will all come out and roundly endorse Obama if he does it.

Your comments (the ones I responded to) were not about energy. They were not about issues. They were blind attacks on my post – not in the sense of my opinions on energy policy, which I'm happy to debate – but on the words I used and my motivations. They were, as you freely admit it seems, partisan hack attacks because I failed to worship every single word spilling out of Obama's mouth as if they were written in stone and carried down off the mountain by Moses. You have nothing whatsoever good to say about a single point made by anyone without a D after their name, and you at least have the refreshing honesty to admit it.

They're all politicians and they are all fallible human beings. They will have good ideas and bad. No matter how poorly the GOP leadership has handled things this decade (and I agree it's been awful) you can't say that every single Republican is cut from the same cloth and responsible in equal measure for any past failures of the leadership. Ok… you obviously can and do say it, but it's not a thoughtful position from a fair, equal point of view.

Pity. You have a command of the issues and make intelligent comments, but when you choose to spend your time in this way, attacking the messenger for daring say something good about another candidate, you discredit yourself tremendously. Please feel free to skip any of my posts since they are obviously worthless, right wing noise machine packs of lies. (Not that I'm even voting for McCain nor am I a member of his party anymore.)

It's okay with me if you want to call me dishonest, unintelligent and cheap.

I have been a commenter here for a long, long time. During that time I have been taken reasonably seriously.

I stand by the complaints I made. I stand by the arguments I made in support of them.

I do think you've taken them too personally, though undoubtedly that's easy for me to say.

I didn't find the pig thing out of bounds. I have known people to use it in reference to their fellow human beings. I understood it as being used figuratively, not literally. I understood that you were using it figuratively to bash Obama. Or, if you prefer, to bash Obama's idea's. I always understood that. I can't imagine why you would think I thought differently.

As for McCain's policy ideas, what I've been seeing is McCain rushing to embrace more-or-less everything the base wants. Off the top of my head, there is, in fact, no policy of McCain's that I think would take our country in a positive direction. McCain is from the party that cut taxes while waging two wars–and waging them poorly–and creating the largest entitlement program–the Medicare Drug Benefit–since Medicare itself. As a result, we have huge deficits. Those deficits will constrain our economy for a long, long time. Plus, we're in hock to the Chinese and the Saudis.

So, yes, I'm a partisan. As I said, I'm a long-time commenter here. I presume any effort I made to argue otherwise would be greeted with howls of derision by the other long-timers. But I am not a blind partisan, Jazz. I have reasons. In fact, you just read them. They're really pretty simple.

As for Bob Barr, I have no interest in voting for a third party candidate. So I have paid zero attention to Bob Barr. Maybe in some year where less seemed at stake I might be open to a Bob Barr. But what I think is that Republican leadership has been a disaster. I don't see how anyone can deny it. And in addition to everything else, I believe there ought to be consequences for the massive failure of Republican leadership. Please, no more Republican leadership for at least four years.

I do not think Obama is the messiah. I am unhappy, for example, with his vote on FISA. I think he does his share of pandering and flip-flopping (although, like you and several others on this thread, I don't consider every change of position to be a sign of pandering).

There you have it.

I understand you see things differently.

Dismiss me if you like.

Obama is wedded to a party that is inflexible on this issue.

If that last 8 years have taught us anything, it should be that the Democratic Party has no absolute principles.

I'm not runasim and I don't intend to speak for her/him (sorry, I'm not sure which). But let me frame the question a little: McCain wants to build 45 nuclear plants by 2030 and 100 by 2050. Assuming 1 GW capacity each (pretty standard), those 100 plants (like the 100 or so plants we already have) would satisfy 20% of our current electricity needs. The going price, without cost overruns (which is more the rule than the exception), is about $7 billion per GW. That amounts to a minimum of $700 billion — not including transmission lines.

In contrast, according to the DOE's study on what it would cost to supply 20% of electrical power with wind by 2030 (in other words, the same amount that McCain wants to provide with nuclear power by 2050), it would cost an estimated $200 billion — including transmission lines. And more than 3/4 of that ($155 billion) would be recouped in fuel savings (based upon 2006 prices). And no water is used. There are other side benefits as well, although I can't say how they compare to the nuclear industry. But let me just mention them.

• support roughly 500,000 jobs in the U.S., with an annual average of more than 150,000 workers directly employed by the wind industry;
• support more than 100,000 jobs in associated industries (e.g., accountants, lawyers, steel workers, and electrical manufacturing);
• support more than 200,000 jobs through economic expansion based on local spending;
• increase annual property tax revenues to more than $1.5 billion by 2030; and
• increase annual payments to rural landowners to more than $600 million in 2030.

Obviously, solar thermal is currently more expensive than wind. But they are already very competitive with nuclear, and prices are expected to come down fast. The cost of nuclear is skyrocketing, and it is unlikely to change anytime soon. I'm not as juiced about geothermal as Sil, but there are definitely locations right now where they can be built cheaply. New dual cycle technologies are now available that expands geothermal's potential into regions where lower temperatures are available (and those technologies are getting better). Still, there are significant technical hurdles before geothermal really fulfills its potential, as awesome as it may ultimately be.

Now, I realize that you're not in favor of nuclear. But the point is, McCain is. And from what I can tell he offers little more than lipservice to wind, solar, and geothermal. That's the problem as I see it. It makes no sense to me. And because it doesn't I think it's the soft underbelly of his energy plan. It's certainly something that concerns me greatly.

As for whether Obama's more lefty base will get behind him if he compromises, I don't know. But I think the same could be asked about McCain's more righty base if he gets behind a compromise that incentivizes wind, solar, geothermal, or whatever and incentivizes energy efficiency. Pardon me for saying so, but my impression is that the extreme right is rather inflexible as well.

By my count, you used a the verb “would” four times in your final paragraph. You used that word because the things you wrote about didn't actually happen. Maybe they will, maybe not. You're guessing what might happen if they did. You're speculating. You're…fantasizing. Aren't you?

Ok, let's look, since your math is so excellent. The first one says, “I would love to welcome Senator Obama onboard the energy train” So I'm not allowed to predict how I WOULD feel about Obama deciding to endorse drilling? Umm… ok.

This would be seen as another betrayal by those already sulking… So, George, are you denying that some left leaning supporters wrote in negative terms about Obama's choices on NAFTA and DC Gun bans? I know you read the news enough not to be so contrary and silly.

His detractors would hit him immediately with the “yet another flip flop” charge.… Come on, George. There are conservative web sites which regularly feature Obama as the poster boy for “This Week in Bus and Driver” and constantly call him a flipflopper. Even Jon Stewart did a montage of his reverse statements on the Daily Show. Would you seriously like to stand up here and claim that Obama's detractors would NOT use it as an excuse to label it a flip flop? Please, do tell. That's asinine to argue against. It's a prediction, yes, but a pretty damned solid one.

It would be a great move for those of us who urgently desire that whichever man we elect will deliver a serious energy policy, but looks politically poisonous. On this one I should have written “for those of us who support domestic drilling but the point still stands. It WOULD be a good move on Obama's part to sell me on his energy policy. Your point about the four “would” words is nonsense.

When you put that phrase in quotes–yet another flip flop–who exactly are you quoting? Isn't it your own imaginary Obama-basher? It's difficult for me to fathom the meaningful difference between that imaginary individual and yourself.
Again… are you here to make the point that conservative, GOP talking heads have NOT been calling Obama a flipflopper for several points where he has changed his position? You know better. Don't try to pass it off on me. I'm not going to go do the Google search for you, George, and you don't need one. You already know it's going on all over. That was more nonsense.

You accuse me of “calling Obama a flipflopper for..” things he hasn't done yet, but I would like him to do. I would welcome him doing it, but recognize that there is a political cost to reversing yourself. You deny this? Not if you're serious about discussing politics. There is a cost and you know it damned well.

Plus, there's that stuff about Revlon not being able to make enough lipstick in a year to dress up that pig. But maybe the pig's not Obama?
You owe me an apology for that one if we're to continue having an open, honest discussion of any sort. You know damned well that the phrase is common as dirt and is used to talk about an IDEA which has weaknesses but you try to dress it up with spin. I don't recall EVER hearing it used in politics in reference to a person and you know that as well, so you're being disingenuous and insulting when you know perfectly well you're doing it for shock effect. You're not that stupid. I'm talking about energy policy, not Obama or his wife or his children or whatever other asinine partisan attack you care to make.

Don't you expect to have someone pushing back? I expect it and welcome it. I just expect it to be honest and intelligent. This response of yours was neither. It was cheap political theater.

But I can't read your mind. I can only read your words. You might try actually reading them, then.

So tell me, George, since I took the time to answer your questions and accusations… can you honestly fill in the two following statements for us without any insulting caveats or add-ons?

“Some of the things I really like about John McCain's policy positions which would take the country in a positive direction and are better than Obama's include…”

and

“Some of the things I really like about Bob Barr's policy positions which would take the country in a positive direction and are better than Obama's include…”

Or can you not because everything Obama says is perfectly in line with your world view and everything a non-Democrat says is evil, flawed and aims to destroy America?

I can (and have) name several points where Obama has the best policy for me, better than both Barr and McCain. I'm not a blind partisan. Can you say the same with any degree of honesty?

I would love to hear specific proposals from you other then lectures on why we cant make anything work unless the federal government is spending trillions to make it so.

Ricorun

I was opining that for Obama to embrace off shore drilling and to convince people like runasim, chris, sil etc. would be a remarkable task. One that I am sure he will not be able to do. Therefore any attempt to do so would be with the caveat that once elected he would flip flop and go back to the standard militant anti drilling position of the democratic party.

In other words as Chris, sil, runasim et all point out……..the die is cast……Obama is wedded to a party that is inflexible on this issue.

At the same time I find it mindlessly stupid of the Republicans to oppose alternative energy and in fact find a way to invest in it. I think its remarkably short sighted that the big oil companies have not built new wind and solar farms etc. all accross the land with their massive profits and double down on their profits by having a big hand in the production of electricity.

We have talked much about that in the industry and have concluded that the big oil companies are headed for a GM< FORD< Type melt down sometime in the future.

And if that wins, I'm going to slit my wrists.

On camera.

Neocon now: BS. This is a crock.

Sounds a little like damned if he does, damned if he doesn't to me.

Seeing that your family is in the oil business, your 'crises at the pump' nonstop advertisng should require a disclaimer on every transparently prejudiced comment.
I wish you and your family well, but not to the extent of being blind to your
self-interest.

Just like Sil's repeat comments with the same message eventually become overwhelmingly tiresome without becoming more convincing, so do yours.

McCain makes no promises and does not seem to have to make any promises about alternatives. On the other hand Obama is pretending to maybe endorse drilling when we all know he wont. No WAY Obama endorses drilling after the election.

In the meantime America burns while congress fiddles.

BS. This is a crock. Obama will never allow drilling and he will just continue to pretend to consider drilling until after the election in which case he will then embark upon his 250 billion dollars of new spending while waving his white hat and yelling “Yippe kai yeah” as he leads us to the promised land of Bankruptcy.