Bush threatens VETO on Energy Bill

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush threatens VETO on Energy Bill which cuts $21 billion tax breaks from big Oil, mandatory 35mpg vehicles

The House was expected to vote Wednesday on the Energy Bill, the one that includes the car company-friendly 35-mpg car/import car/truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard. And President Bush is threatening a veto.

Why? Simple. While the CAFE standards aren't easy on the automakers, the car companies have been investing their own capital on more fuel-efficient engines and transmissions and believe they can meet the standard by 2020, the specified date in the bill. But the Energy Bill also would cut $21 billion in breaks to energy companies, the Detroit Free Press reports.

http://indecent.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/05/1144466-bush-threatens-veto-on-energy-bill-which-cuts-21-billion-tax-breaks-from-big-oil-mandatory-35mpg-vehicles

House Passes Energy Bill with New CAFE Regulations

7 December 2007

In a vote largely split along party lines, the US House of Representatives passed H.R. 6, an amalgamated energy bill now containing a 40% increase in fuel economy requirements by 2020; an increase in the renewable fuel standard to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022; provisions for a renewable electricity portfolio; and the elimination of about $13 billion in tax subsidies for big energy companies, along with a host of other provisions and initiatives. (The bill is more than 1,000 pages long.)

The bill now heads back to the Senate, and, assuming it clears that hurdle, on to the White House, which has already threatened a veto.

CAFE. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) language maintains the distinction between passenger cars and light duty vehicle trucks, and targets combined average fuel economy of 35 mpg by 2020. The new program would take effect with model year 2011. For 2021 to 2030, the bill calls for the “maximum feasible average fuel economy standard for each fleet for that model year.”

The bill allows the establishment of a fuel economy credit trading program among the manufacturers. The bill also requires the development of fuel economy improvement programs for commercial vehicles.

The flexible fuel vehicle credit—whereby manufacturers of flexible fuel vehicles get to log an increase in average fuel economy as a function of the flex-fuel vehicles they produce—is extended on a declining scale through 2019.

Transportation electrification. The bill contains a number of provisions to accelerate the electrification of transportation, including:

*

The establishment of a program to provide $450 million in grants over 5 years to State governments, local governments, metropolitan transportation authorities, air pollution control districts, private or nonprofit entities, or combinations of those governments, authorities, districts, and entities, to carry out 1 or more projects to encourage the use of plug-in electric drive vehicles or other emerging electric vehicle technologies.
*

The establishment of a program to provide $570 million in grants for near term electric transportation projects.
*

An educational program that includes a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle competition—to be known as the “Dr. Andrew Frank Plug-In Electric Vehicle Competition” for institutions of higher education.
*

Support for plant conversions, incentives for vehicle manufacturing and advanced battery manufacturing in the US.

Renewable Fuel Standard. The new renewable fuel standard target rises to 36 billion gallons in 2022. The renewable fuel standard includes a low-carbon fuel element to it: basic renewable fuel used in fulfillment of the requirements of the RFS produced after the enactment of the RFS must achieve at least a 20% reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Cellulosic biofuels need to register a 60% reduction from the baseline, and other advanced biofuels, including biomass-based diesel must register a 50% reduction from baseline.

Corn ethanol is capped at 15 billion gallons; the remaining 21 billion gallons is to come from advanced biofuels (non-corn ethanol; cellulosic ethanol; biobutanol; biogas; biomass-based diesel), at least 16 billion of which are to be cellulosic biofuels.

Resources:

H.R.6: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by House)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:6:./temp/~c1109zPjBp::

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/house-passes-en.html

[baja]

In any other job this clown would be out on his ass or in jail.

Our government needs fixing....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In any other job this clown would be out on his ass or in jail.

Ain't that the truth?

Gotta hand it to Rove and the entire GOP snake oil sales team:

They've managed to convince their base that the interests of a few giant transnational corporations = the interests of rank and file republicans on Main St.

http://www.bartcop.com/tutus-best-for-2006.jpg
"If Bush commits any real crimes, we'll impeach him!"

[W*GS]

In any other job this clown would be out on his ass or in jail.

That's tautologically true of most politicians.

Our government needs fixing....

I thought your government was the Mexican government...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS with the "look over there."

Always a loyal deflection agent for the Bush misadministration.

[cutthemdown]

The last thing you want to do right now is stifle the auto industry with controls that won't make a difference for climate change. Doing too much to industry right now would be bad for our economy and right now we can't afford that. Besides with China set to triple it's CO2 output in the next 10 years it won't even make a dent.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The last thing you want to do right now is stifle the auto industry with controls that won't make a difference for climate change. Doing too much to industry right now would be bad for our economy and right now we can't afford that. Besides with China set to triple it's CO2 output in the next 10 years it won't even make a dent.

How 'bout the $21 billion in subsidies for Big Oil?

Your tax dollars at work, Bush supporters.

Shows where Bush's priorities are.

[cutthemdown]

How 'bout the $21 billion in subsidies for Big Oil?

Your tax dollars at work, Bush supporters.

Shows where Bush's priorities are.

Unless it for research to find new oil sources then I'm against it, but I have to be honest I'm not up to date on how much he's giving them or what it's for. Generally I don't like subsidies and I do feel Bush has spent way to much money.

I'm also against and bailout for the mortgage industry.

[baja]

Unless it for research to find new oil sources then I'm against it, but I have to be honest I'm not up to date on how much he's giving them or what it's for. Generally I don't like subsidies and I do feel Bush has spent way to much money.

I'm also against and bailout for the mortgage industry.

Tax money for R&D ?? Have you seen the profits for the oil companies lately, they are obscene.

[W*GS]

W*GS with the "look over there."

Always a loyal deflection agent for the Bush misadministration.

Is this your latest strategy? Every one of my posts is a deflection?

You're just being silly.

[TailgateNut]

The last thing you want to do right now is stifle the auto industry with controls that won't make a difference for climate change. Doing too much to industry right now would be bad for our economy and right now we can't afford that. Besides with China set to triple it's CO2 output in the next 10 years it won't even make a dent.

Marching to the tune, as always. Tell me one thing. Fuel efficiency issues aside, why should we IN ANY WAY subsidize, or give breaks to any company whos' executive are receive sickening bonuses while RAPING the consumers?

[TailgateNut]

Unless it for research to find new oil sources then I'm against it, but I have to be honest I'm not up to date on how much he's giving them or what it's for. Generally I don't like subsidies and I do feel Bush has spent way to much money.

I'm also against and bailout for the mortgage industry.


"UNLESS IT"S FOR RESEARCH"! WTF???

The same reserch which will eventually make continued profits for those companies. Most private companies invest in their futures without goverment assistance. It's called "planning ahead".

Last time I checked the Oil and gas industry are private entities.

[Bronco Bob]

The last thing you want to do right now is stifle the auto industry with controls that won't make a difference for climate change.


A lot of C02 comes out of the tailpipes of cars and trucks.

Doing too much to industry right now would be bad for our economy and right now we can't afford that. Besides with China set to triple it's CO2 output in the next 10 years it won't even make a dent.

If the US makes more fuel efficient vehicles the Chinese will follow suit.
Same with coal fired power plants. We make the technology to capture
C02 after the coal is burned, the Chinese will use that technology too.
America is supposed to be the innovator, the leader. If the US isn't
making an effort to lead, how or why do you think anyone else is going to
follow?

[Rohirrim]

35 mpg by 2020? We had 35 mpg cars in the 80s! We could bump it to 50 mpg today and the Japanese would be putting those cars on our streets tomorrow. Why can't Ford and GM do it? This bill is nothing more than the do-nothing Congress masturbating itself to pretend like its doing something. We have to get off the ME oil teat. NOW! Not in 2020. This bill is like your house is on fire so you throw a cup of sand on it. Ethanol is not the answer. Have you noticed the price of meat and chicken? The higher the corn price goes, the higher the price of meat. THAT hits the poor and middle class.

Our number one security issue must be energy independence. Everything else is tied to that. We need an Apollo Program of energy action. A discussion of changing the CAFE in 13 years is so pathetic the Dems should just continue to do nothing and shut up about it. They would look far less stupid. Of course, the fact that the Repugs are blocking even this barest minimum of a bill shows what slime balls they are. I doubt they go to the bathroom without asking Exxon Mobil for permission.

What part of "EMERGENCY" don't these idiots get? Our entire involvement in the ME, the terrorist attacks against us, and global warming are all caused by our moronic inability to deal with our own energy dependence. We're like crack addicts, except our drug of choice is oil. The corporations that diligently work to keep this country hooked (and under their heels) are guilty of treason. Their CEOs should be lined up and shot.

[TailgateNut]

The corporations that diligently work to keep this country hooked (and under their heels) are guilty of treason. Their CEOs should be lined up and shot.

The problem with that is the fact that the current administration owes those corporations for their free "room and board" in the WH. They also need to be held accountable. Until we do, all this talk is fruitless.

[Rohirrim]

Of course, when it comes right down to it, it's the American people who keep buying Hummers. Perhaps we should add this story to every American student's curricula?
http://www.unmuseum.org/easteri.htm

[TailgateNut]

Once again if one approaches the subject with a closed mind (the global warming nay-sayers come to mind) it's fruitless. Most of the "everything is wonderful in my world" crowd wouldn't even be able to make a connection!

[alkemical]

35 mpg by 2020? We had 35 mpg cars in the 80s! We could bump it to 50 mpg today and the Japanese would be putting those cars on our streets tomorrow. Why can't Ford and GM do it? This bill is nothing more than the do-nothing Congress masturbating itself to pretend like its doing something. We have to get off the ME oil teat. NOW! Not in 2020. This bill is like your house is on fire so you throw a cup of sand on it. Ethanol is not the answer. Have you noticed the price of meat and chicken? The higher the corn price goes, the higher the price of meat. THAT hits the poor and middle class.

Our number one security issue must be energy independence. Everything else is tied to that. We need an Apollo Program of energy action. A discussion of changing the CAFE in 13 years is so pathetic the Dems should just continue to do nothing and shut up about it. They would look far less stupid. Of course, the fact that the Repugs are blocking even this barest minimum of a bill shows what slime balls they are. I doubt they go to the bathroom without asking Exxon Mobil for permission.

What part of "EMERGENCY" don't these idiots get? Our entire involvement in the ME, the terrorist attacks against us, and global warming are all caused by our moronic inability to deal with our own energy dependence. We're like crack addicts, except our drug of choice is oil. The corporations that diligently work to keep this country hooked (and under their heels) are guilty of treason. Their CEOs should be lined up and shot.

Also add for congress to make Flex-Fuel vehicles mandatory to at least open up competition to Oil.

[TheDave]

35 mpg by 2020? We had 35 mpg cars in the 80s! We could bump it to 50 mpg today and the Japanese would be putting those cars on our streets tomorrow. Why can't Ford and GM do it? This bill is nothing more than the do-nothing Congress masturbating itself to pretend like its doing something. We have to get off the ME oil teat. NOW! Not in 2020. This bill is like your house is on fire so you throw a cup of sand on it. Ethanol is not the answer. Have you noticed the price of meat and chicken? The higher the corn price goes, the higher the price of meat. THAT hits the poor and middle class.

Our number one security issue must be energy independence. Everything else is tied to that. We need an Apollo Program of energy action. A discussion of changing the CAFE in 13 years is so pathetic the Dems should just continue to do nothing and shut up about it. They would look far less stupid. Of course, the fact that the Repugs are blocking even this barest minimum of a bill shows what slime balls they are. I doubt they go to the bathroom without asking Exxon Mobil for permission.

What part of "EMERGENCY" don't these idiots get? Our entire involvement in the ME, the terrorist attacks against us, and global warming are all caused by our moronic inability to deal with our own energy dependence. We're like crack addicts, except our drug of choice is oil. The corporations that diligently work to keep this country hooked (and under their heels) are guilty of treason. Their CEOs should be lined up and shot.

Because the vast majority of their profits are made by selling f-350's to a guy who wears a tie to go to work. I agree 100% with what you are saying... but there is another side that needs to be considered.

If we put the clamps on the big 3 (well 2 these days) how do we keep the economy going when the layoffs start coming. We already have 1/3 of the working population in trouble due to the housing collapse. We have to be very careful doing anything that will put additional people on the streets.

IMO this law is acceptable if we can make exemptions for light trucks... This would allow the American companies to continue the sale of these monsters while forcing them to increase CAFE standards across the rest of their line. Another thing that needs to be investigated is the ridiculous restrictions on Diesel engines. In Europe everyone drives a diesel and gets 40+ mpg but because of the pollution standards in CA these same diesel engines are considered illegal. A smaller displacement 6 cylinder diesel in a ford f-150 could return high 20's to low 30's in gas mileage and go a long ways towards attaining these new standards.

On the face of this it seems more simple than it is. We need to look for continuous improvement and especially for alternative fuels.... but...There needs to be some give and take over the next few years to get where we need to be... JMO.

[cutthemdown]

A lot of C02 comes out of the tailpipes of cars and trucks.



If the US makes more fuel efficient vehicles the Chinese will follow suit.
Same with coal fired power plants. We make the technology to capture
C02 after the coal is burned, the Chinese will use that technology too.
America is supposed to be the innovator, the leader. If the US isn't
making an effort to lead, how or why do you think anyone else is going to
follow?

I'm sure the Chinese would love for us to give that technology away. They have been crying as such recently. It isn't going to happen though because in our country you get money for coming up with such technology. I love your line if we do it then China will also. No, they won't. They just released there budget and it only contained 1 percent of the GNP for environmental cleanup. They have already destoryed their water supply and the air is so far gone I doubt it will ever be fixed. China is a cesspool and will create more co2 each and every yr. To simply give China this technology is not good business and our companies that had to develop this technology shouldn't have to give it away. China is spending billions on it's military and trying to go to the moon so to give them anything would be a total liberal blow job IMO. They can simply stop the space program and military spending, use some of the dollars they have in reserve, and buy it from us period.

[cutthemdown]

I think the 35 mpg is a fleetwide avg not what each car needs to be. The problem is all the trucks and big cars americans like that don't reach those standards. The trucks construction workers drive to work etc etc. You don't want to make restrictions like these too early. For one it won't cool the earth. Secondly it will stifle the economy and really send us into recession. Not the kind of recession you all talk about where the economy is slowed down, i mean a real recession where the economy actually shrinks.

Seeing how left wing you all are sometimes I feel that's what you all want. That way you can say see capitalism doesn't work let's be socialist!!!!!!!!!

[Bronco Bob]

I'm sure the Chinese would love for us to give that technology away. They have been crying as such recently. It isn't going to happen though because in our country you get money for coming up with such technology. I love your line if we do it then China will also. No, they won't. They just released there budget and it only contained 1 percent of the GNP for environmental cleanup. They have already destoryed their water supply and the air is so far gone I doubt it will ever be fixed. China is a cesspool and will create more co2 each and every yr. To simply give China this technology is not good business and our companies that had to develop this technology shouldn't have to give it away. China is spending billions on it's military and trying to go to the moon so to give them anything would be a total liberal blow job IMO. They can simply stop the space program and military spending, use some of the dollars they have in reserve, and buy it from us period.

I never said we were going to just give it to them. Of course we could sell
them the technology. But if no one is working on it, there isn't going
to be anything to sell.

[cutthemdown]

I never said we were going to just give it to them. Of course we could sell
them the technology. But if no one is working on it, there isn't going
to be anything to sell.

The push to clean energy is on IMO in the USA so we don't need benchmarks. And yes what the world wants is for the rich countries to just give it away. Also these benchmarks they want to set don't include China and India. They are 2 of the top co2 producers and producing more every yr. Why should we give China a break when they are growing their economy at a breakneck pace and stockpiling dollars. If you have so many dollars in reserve then spend them if you want to reduce C02. Don't come playing the we are poor, we can't cut co2 BS. It's just another way China is trying to beat us. IMO if you put someone into space like China did you are no longer a 3rd world country. You are now the same as Germany/Japan/Russia/USA etc etc, ( i know not all those countries have a space program) but the point stands if you have the type of cash to launch killer satelites into space then you can pay your way.

[Bronco Bob]

The push to clean energy is on IMO in the USA so we don't need benchmarks. And yes what the world wants is for the rich countries to just give it away. Also these benchmarks they want to set don't include China and India. They are 2 of the top co2 producers and producing more every yr. Why should we give China a break when they are growing their economy at a breakneck pace and stockpiling dollars. If you have so many dollars in reserve then spend them if you want to reduce C02. Don't come playing the we are poor, we can't cut co2 BS. It's just another way China is trying to beat us. IMO if you put someone into space like China did you are no longer a 3rd world country. You are now the same as Germany/Japan/Russia/USA etc etc, ( i know not all those countries have a space program) but the point stands if you have the type of cash to launch killer satelites into space then you can pay your way.

No argument there. I'm just saying if everyone stands around waiting
for the next guy to go first nothing is going to get done. Meanwhile
70 million tons of C02 gets dumped into the air. And the next day a little
more. And the next day a little more. And the earth gets warmer
and warmer. And the day when everyone is ****ed gets that much
sooner.

[RaiderH8r]

Tax money for R&D ?? Have you seen the profits for the oil companies lately, they are obscene.

That R&D money goes to independent US producers who drill 90% of wells in the US. Exxon, Conoco, et al all have their own R&D programs but the technology is 1. proprietary, they don't give it away and 2. designed for their well formations, i.e. Mid-East, Africa, and other holdings which have different rock formations and challenges than US formations.

Furthermore, the tax incentives that are being rolled back in the "energy" bill (a true misnomer if ever there was one...oh wait, Pelosi's open and honest government has to take the cake) are directed specifically towards US independents to develop and utilize technologies to drill deeper and tighter formations to produce more oil from existing well heads. Other improvements in technology include horizontal drilling (resulting in fewer pads per field), 3D seismic (more accurate mapping of geologic features decreasing the likelyhood of dry wells and needless drilling), capture of coal bed methane (resulting in little to no methane release where it is used thus lowering the amount of a greenhouse gas that has 23 times the forcing capacity as CO2). A good portion of the tax rollback aimed at "big oil" (f'n lie) is the section 199 tax credit for domestic manufacturing. CBO scored this at $15 Billion. Aimed at promoting manufacturing and value added jobs in the 2004 JOBS act the credit allows for companies to take a reduction in taxes for producing raw products for use or export. The roll back takes this away from domestic independents costing them more money. Domestic independent producers operate on tighter margins and utilize the most advanced technology in their drilling operations. These are not the Big 5. Bottom line, rolling back tax credits on domestic producers does nothing to get after the Democrats' vaunted bad guy, Big Oil, becuase 80% of their holdings are overseas and not subject to the US tax code in this case.

Furthermore, the return on investment for oil and natural gas is at 8.5%, the national average is 8.2%, so these "outrageous fortunes" that are being griped about are true in gross dollars but don't hold water on a per dollar return basis. Ultimately the fallout of these types of hyperbolic statements and bills is that US independents go out of business, Big Oil gobbles up more of a market share and Democrats get to keep bitching because, let's face it, Big Oil is going to make big money for the forseeable future...no matter what policy these jackasses implement. There are 1.3 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians (dot not feather) who want a better lifestyle and affordable, reliable, and abundant energy is the cornerstone of that lifestyle and they will pursue it regardless of the US, the UN, and certainly Democrats' hysterics.

Last, but not least, Nancy's "Energy" Bill doesn't produce one iota of energy. Moreover it was the product of the classic DC "back room deal". Am I the only one who recalls the Democrat 2006 platform of open and honest government, bipartisanship, transparency, and even Nancy pledging to "drain the swamp"? The bill was done outside of normal procedure, in negotiations between Nancy, Harry, and a cadre of their supporters. The first time most Members, not fortunate enough to be on this most inner of inner circles, to see the bill was the day of consideration. No subcommittee, no committee, no markup, no conference, nothing. She tried to ramrod a bill through with her majority and the Senate gave her the political bitch slap and sent her packing.

[cutthemdown]

No argument there. I'm just saying if everyone stands around waiting
for the next guy to go first nothing is going to get done. Meanwhile
70 million tons of C02 gets dumped into the air. And the next day a little
more. And the next day a little more. And the earth gets warmer
and warmer. And the day when everyone is ****ed gets that much
sooner.

I agree America should push for cleaner renewable energy sources. I just don't like benchmarks I know we will get held to and the rest of the world won't. I also don't like how the poor countries(China says they are one and is accepted as one in the Kyoto accords). It was right to not sign it because it's not fair.

I think you are wrong if you think money isn't pouring into alternative energy. They way to let it progress however is by letting economics push it at the speed the economy can sustain. It's not going to be by forcing the private sector to suddenly have to meet benchmarks imposed on us by some accord that doesn't hold other countries accountable.

Why does Kyoto give China a free pass? and how can you want our President to sign it since it does give China/India/Brazil a free pass?

read this link bob then tell me China wants to play fair.


http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/26540

BEIJING (Reuters) - China wants rich economies to back a fund to speed the spread of greenhouse gas-cutting technology in poor nations as it seeks to persuade delegates at global warming talks the focus of responsibility belongs on the West.

At talks in Bali to start crafting an international agreement to fight climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, some rich countries have said a new pact must spell out greenhouse gas goals for all big emitters.

China is emerging as the planet's biggest source of carbon dioxide from industry, vehicles and farms that is trapping more atmospheric heat and threatening disastrous climate change. Under Kyoto, it and other poor countries do not shoulder fixed goals to control such pollution.

[RaiderH8r]

A lot of C02 comes out of the tailpipes of cars and trucks.



If the US makes more fuel efficient vehicles the Chinese will follow suit.
Same with coal fired power plants. We make the technology to capture
C02 after the coal is burned, the Chinese will use that technology too.
America is supposed to be the innovator, the leader. If the US isn't
making an effort to lead, how or why do you think anyone else is going to
follow?

Regarding Chinese coal plants. If the Chinese were building coal plants up to the average standard of efficiency and cleanliness of today's US plants alone we could achieve the global emissions cuts set forth in the Kyoto Protocol. That technology exists, and is readily available, but the Chinese just don't use it. Why? They're trying to build an economy at a break neck pace. When you don't have heat or clean water or roads or lights the environment just doesn't rank very high on your priority list.

Carbon capture is an absolute pipe dream. I'm expected to believe that we are going to capture CO2, and someone is just going to let it be pumped into the ground? Are you serious? What of the liability issues? What happens when there's a leak? How is this philosophy working out for the nuclear industry? Which, incidentally, is in the best position to achieve these emissioins cuts with the smallest adverse impact on the economy. This issue is so obfuscated and clouded with emotional rhetoric the best course of action now is to do precisely nothing because when people are this vehiment nothing good can come of it. Deep breaths, calm down, and be rational.

CAFE-yes
Access to domestic natural gas-yes
Wind-yes
Solar-yes
Nuclear-yes
Biofuels-yes

That is what a true energy mix should entail if anyone is serious about cutting emissions. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand enough about the issue. Fuel switching from coal will happen. Carbon sequestration will not. Natural gas is the fit to bridge to Nuclear buildout and implementation of greater wind, solar, and biofuels.

[Garcia Bronco]

Co2 huh?

Plant more trees

[cutthemdown]

I actually think that making artificial carbon sinkholes can work. It won't solve everything though it's just one part of it. You can feed co2 to algea in man made vats that are promising so coal does have it's part in the new equation of clean energy. I also think it will entail wind, solar, tides etc along with cleaner coal fired plants. I really think the biggest breakthroughs will come in using solar power more effeciently.

I though have faith that most of these advances can be done without sigining Kyoto. Kyoto would be a bad deal for the USA. Russia also will never agree to it. If you made the Chinese and Indians abide by it instead of only having to ratify it then they also would be agianst it.

[cutthemdown]

Co2 huh?

Plant more trees

I heard they think now it's all about the seaweed!!!!

[Spider]

From Casper wy to Ekalaka mt I used 180 Gallons of fuel , From Ekalaka MT to Casper , to Cheyenne , 120 gallons , from Cheyenne to Amarillo 96 Gallons , from Amarillo to Junction Texas 156 Gallons , from Junction Texas to Jolly Texas via Navasota Texas 113 gallons , from Jolly to Casper , and I am under a quarter of tank roughly 180 gallons ..... @ an average of 3.35 per gallon ..... yeah fuel millage is everything

[Spider]

off the top of my head 600 gallons to go 2400+ miles . roughly 4 miles to the gallon

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Furthermore, the return on investment for oil and natural gas is at 8.5%, the national average is 8.2%, so these "outrageous fortunes" that are being griped about are true in gross dollars but don't hold water on a per dollar return basis.

ROFL!

What a joke that is.

The oil majors, by their own accounting, have been swimming in more surplus cash than they could possibly figure out how to spend since ExxonMobil reported its first record quarter.

[RaiderH8r]

ROFL!

What a joke that is.

The oil majors, by their own accounting, have been swimming in more surplus cash than they could possibly figure out how to spend since ExxonMobil reported its first record quarter.

LOL

Well, that's quite a rebuttal.

The oil majors, by their own accounting, and that of the SEC, and that of the MMS, and that of CBO, report an ROI hovering around 8.5%.

I know the number looks big but rarely does anyone mention the cost of doing business.

None the less, the tax package included in HR 6 has little, if any, impact on Exxon. So there still remains the problem of Pelosi using "Big Oil" as her whipping post and the fact that her bill just does not square with her rhetoric. That's a long way of saying she's full of it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL

Well, that's quite a rebuttal.

The oil majors, by their own accounting, and that of the SEC, and that of the MMS, and that of CBO, report an ROI hovering around 8.5%.

I know the number looks big but rarely does anyone mention the cost of doing business.

:bs:

After that first big record quarter for ExxonMobil, the execs themselves were saying they had so much surplus cash that they had no idea how they could ever spend it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The facts vs. RaiderH8r:

Big Oil's Burden of Too Much Cash

Born from the megamergers of the 1990's, the world's giant oil companies have delivered on their promise. They have cut costs, increased returns and raised profits to records. Now, flush with cash, they find themselves in a paradoxical position - they are making more money than they can comfortably spend.

http://www.energybulletin.net/4318.html

[baja]

The facts vs. RaiderH8r:

Big Oil's Burden of Too Much Cash

Born from the megamergers of the 1990's, the world's giant oil companies have delivered on their promise. They have cut costs, increased returns and raised profits to records. Now, flush with cash, they find themselves in a paradoxical position -<b> they are making more money than they can comfortably spend.</b>

http://www.energybulletin.net/4318.html

There you see as lone bolt says we are jumping to conclusions about Bush again. Clearly the reason Bush promises to veto the bill taking away the 21 Billion in tax breaks is to make those big oil companies even more uncomfortable.

[Bronco Bob]

There you see as lone bolt says we are jumping to conclusions about Bush again. Clearly the reason Bush promises to veto the bill taking away the 21 Billion in tax breaks is to make those big oil companies even more uncomfortable.

I always figured Bush was a cruel bastard, but I never thought he would
stoop so low as to make those poor, unfortunate oil companies suffer.

[Rohirrim]

Anybody read about permafrost?

Southern Siberia is the fastest warming region on the planet, being seven to 10 degrees warmer than normal. Animals are not hibernating; dandelions are flowering out of season; and in the north ice packs are failing to form.

This is causing almost one million square kilometres of permafrost to melt. This is releasing large quantities of methane and carbon dioxide. It is estimated that the west Siberian bog alone contains 70 billion tonnes of methane. This is a quarter of all the methane stored on the land surface of the world.

When we remember that methane is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2, the Siberian storage is equivalent to 1½ trillion tons of carbon. This vast figure is almost as much greenhouse gas as humans have put into the atmosphere in the past 200 years.
To realise that these gasses are being emitted now in belches, called ‘burping’ is very scary.

In addition, the earth's soil is another huge sink of carbon dioxide, and this too is now being released due to global warming. Over the past 25 years the carbon content English and Walsh soils has diminished by 13 million tons each year. If this situation was the same world-wide this is another vast source to add to permafrost. Altogether there is 300 times as much carbon trapped in the soils as we release each year from burning fossil fuels.

On this evidence drastic action is needed. We need to cut existing emissions by between 80% and 90% in the next 10 years to stand a chance of preventing climate change becoming unstoppable. This is the riskiest scenario, but under the circumstances is anything less prudent? http://www.planetextinction.com/Newsletter/footprints_3_Dec06.html

Easter Island, baby! Let's partay! ;D

[TailgateNut]

I always figured Bush was a cruel bastard, but I never thought he would
stoop so low as to make those poor, unfortunate oil companies suffer.



Profit Soars at Exxon Mobil
Surging Oil Prices Lead to Company's Best Second Quarter

By Joe Carroll
Bloomberg News
Friday, July 29, 2005; Page D02

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, said yesterday that second-quarter profit rose 32 percent, to $7.64 billion, as Asia and North America used more crude oil and gasoline.

The quarterly profit was the third-highest in the company's history. Revenue climbed 25 percent, to $88.57 billion, Exxon said. A doubling of oil prices since 2003 has put the Irving, Tex.-based company on a pace to surpass Wal-Mart Stores Inc. this year as the largest U.S. company by total revenue.



Exxon chief Lee R. Raymond is investing in Africa and Middle East. (Donna Mcwilliam - AP)

Oil and Gas Prices
Stock prices, economic forecasts and consumer confidence show that ever-more-volatile oil prices have become a barometer by which consumers, investors, corporate executives and even voters gauge the future.

Senate Passes Energy Bill Without House Tax Package
Senate Republicans Block Energy Bill
Russia's New Oligarchy
Senate Energy Bill Drops Utility Rules, Keeps Most of Tax Package
Exxon to Put Floating Gas Plant Off N.J. Coast
More News
Profit from worldwide oil and natural gas exploration and production operations jumped 28 percent, to $4.91 billion. Production decreased 4.3 percent, to 3.91 million barrels a day.

The gap between crude oil costs and prices for refined fuels was the widest ever, as consumption rose faster than supplies. Exxon's refining and marketing profit rose 34 percent, to $2.02 billion, mostly outside the United States.

Exxon chief executive Lee R. Raymond is investing in oil and gas fields in Africa and the Middle East as demand grows and output declines from older wells in Europe and North America.

Soaring demand for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and chemicals helped boost U.S. crude oil futures to a second-quarter average of $53.22 a barrel.

Exxon Mobil and other oil companies may benefit from $2.6 billion in subsidies in the energy bill that is nearing passage in Congress. The subsidies, designed to encourage domestic oil and gas production, were part of an oil industry "wish list," according to David Hamilton, the Sierra Club's energy programs director.

About two-thirds of Exxon's profit comes from oil and gas production.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the world's third-largest publicly traded oil company, said yesterday that second-quarter profit rose 34 percent, to $5.24 billion. BP PLC, the second-largest, said on July 26 that profit rose 29 percent, to $5.59 billion.

ConocoPhillips, the third-largest U.S. oil company, said Wednesday that profit rose 51 percent, to $3.14 billion. Chevron Corp., the No. 2 U.S. oil company, is scheduled to announce second-quarter results today




We really DO NEED TO CONTINUE subsidizing this industry. How in the world would they survive? The Horror of meager 28-51% profits increases is just unbelieveable! ...and this was with $53 a barrel costs!

[Spider]

Ya Know the trucking industry gets no subsidizing whats so ever . we are completely self supporting , I think we are one of the most heavily taxed industries there is .........

[baja]

http://www.energybulletin.net/news.php?cat=33&pageID=15

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I always figured Bush was a cruel bastard, but I never thought he would
stoop so low as to make those poor, unfortunate oil companies suffer.

Yep.

I'm sure the right-wingers are celebrating the fact that this $21 billion went to big oil companies with cash surpluses so large they don't know how to spend the money and not children's healthcare or some other "handout."

[cutthemdown]

Ya Know the trucking industry gets no subsidizing whats so ever . we are completely self supporting , I think we are one of the most heavily taxed industries there is .........

What do you call all the roads you drive on?

[Spider]

What do you call all the roads you drive on?

you dumb **** , we pay almost 12,00 a year in road use tax to drive on them retard ....... if we are oversized it goes up ...... STF up ....... retard

[Spider]

12,00 a year in road use tax . per ****ing truck ....... who pays biatch ?
Cut , you have ot be one of the most stupidest bastards posting here in a long ****ing time .....

[Spider]

What do you call all the roads you drive on?

when was the last time you filled one of these out http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2290.pdf...... P.S. I am in the 75 K and over range

[cutthemdown]

I don't doubt you get taxed for the use of the roads I'm just saying the govt spends more then that to have built all these freeways. Sure the oil got a subsidy to explore but it's not like the don't pay tax on their revenues.

Also I just don't get why you get so hostile over every post and stoop to name calling. Sure everyone does it once in awhile but you have a real problem.

You might want to think about anger management.

[cutthemdown]

Spider I also don't doubt you make good money and IMO you should. Truck driving is dangerous tiring work and you deserve every penny you make. I'm just saying that the Govt does a lot to try and make sure trucks can make it from point A to point B. I'm sure you are well aware of the damage big rigs do to the freeways and to traffic so they have to tax you some.

[cutthemdown]

when was the last time you filled one of these out http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2290.pdf...... P.S. I am in the 75 K and over range

Never even heard of that form before but I never said you don't pay tax. Saying the oil companies got a 20 billion tax break makes it sound like govt made no revenue of the oil companies. The tax breaks were to get the oil companies to keep looking for new oil. It's really not a big deal like you all make it out to be.

[Spider]

I don't doubt you get taxed for the use of the roads I'm just saying the govt spends more then that to have built all these freeways. Sure the oil got a subsidy to explore but it's not like the don't pay tax on their revenues.

Also I just don't get why you get so hostile over every post and stoop to name calling. Sure everyone does it once in awhile but you have a real problem.

You might want to think about anger management.

I dont like you ..... plain and simple .....and you are full of **** ... not only do we pay road use , we pay at the pump ..... just stop and think for a second ......tax on 300 gallons of fuel every 2-3 days

[cutthemdown]

I dont like you ..... plain and simple .....and you are full of **** ... not only do we pay road use , we pay at the pump ..... just stop and think for a second ......tax on 300 gallons of fuel every 2-3 days

Oh I didn't know truckers had to pay more tax then me for gas. Oh that's right they don't.

[cutthemdown]

Truckers should have to pay a lot they screw up the roads and cause a ton of traffic. Not to mention all the co2 they spew out. Pretty soon you might have to pay a co2 tax also if someone like Obama wins.

[Spider]

Oh I didn't know truckers had to pay more tax then me for gas. Oh that's right they don't.

there is alot you dont know dumbass , you use 300 gallons every couple of days ? ROFL! yeah ok .. then you do understand it istaxed per gallon ..... So HELL YES WE PAY ALOT MORE THEN YOU

[Spider]

Truckers should have to pay a lot they screw up the roads and cause a ton of traffic. Not to mention all the co2 they spew out. Pretty soon you might have to pay a co2 tax also if someone like Obama wins.

I dint say we shouldnt , just pointing how stupid you are for trying to say trucking gets subsidized ........

[cutthemdown]

I dint say we shouldnt , just pointing how stupid you are for trying to say trucking gets subsidized ........

I was just pointing out the govt spends money in a lot of sectors to help commerce. Sure a lot of it is political as well, but you make it sound like no tax money gets spent to make sure truckers can truck. I disagree plenty of money gets put back into roads and freeways so you can do your job. Besides you need that oil to do your job so you should want the govt to encourage exploration with some tax breaks.

[Spider]

I was just pointing out the govt spends money in a lot of sectors to help commerce. Sure a lot of it is political as well, but you make it sound like no tax money gets spent to make sure truckers can truck. I disagree plenty of money gets put back into roads and freeways so you can do your job. Besides you need that oil to do your job so you should want the govt to encourage exploration with some tax breaks.

dude you are full of **** ......Cars , taxis , Buses also use the ****ing roads , they are Public roads ya freak , we pay an extra tax to use them ..... We dont get s big ole check from uncle sam saying here , it was a slow month , this will help you through ...... you are such a little piss ant .....

[Bronco Bob]

I was just pointing out the govt spends money in a lot of sectors to help commerce. Sure a lot of it is political as well, but you make it sound like no tax money gets spent to make sure truckers can truck. I disagree plenty of money gets put back into roads and freeways so you can do your job. Besides you need that oil to do your job so you should want the govt to encourage exploration with some tax breaks.

This is true. Trucks use roads that everyone has to pay for. While the
railroads have to maintain the rails at their own expense. Part of the
reason railroads have declined and trucks now serve many areas that
used to be served by rail. Yeah, truckers pay taxes too, but they put
a lot more wear and damage on the road than a car.

[cutthemdown]

This is true. Trucks use roads that everyone has to pay for. While the
railroads have to maintain the rails at their own expense. Part of the
reason railroads have declined and trucks now serve many areas that
used to be served by rail. Yeah, truckers pay taxes too, but they put
a lot more wear and damage on the road than a car.

exactly. The point has been made Spider.


Ecce signum

[Spider]

This is true. Trucks use roads that everyone has to pay for. While the
railroads have to maintain the rails at their own expense. Part of the
reason railroads have declined and trucks now serve many areas that
used to be served by rail. Yeah, truckers pay taxes too, but they put
a lot more wear and damage on the road than a car.
Some roads , next time you are driving open your eyes and see a truck route ,they are clearly marked , a fully loaded truck does as much damage to a road as 20 cars ... yet we pay alot more ......

[Spider]

oh and train company get corporate welfare ....... Point made cork sucker

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The oil majors, by their own accounting, and that of the SEC, and that of the MMS, and that of CBO, report an ROI hovering around 8.5%.

I know the number looks big but rarely does anyone mention the cost of doing business.

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

Get real!

You can use all kinds of accounting tricks to depreciate or appreciate the cost of doing business.

Oil companies can use whatever numbers they want to account for the cost of goods or operations, (just like Halliburton's $6 six pack of soda or $100 charge for washing a bag of dirty laundry) especially when they own the subsidairies and/or interest in refineries. Bill can say he charged $1,000 for 'x, y, and z' - fine and dandy when Bill is your bro and the head of a company you have an interest in.

Your arguments are laughable. You are arguing that it's good for the US economy that Exxon charges US consumers double and that Exxon can't operate at 1/3 of its profit levels of $40 billion (which it was doing before the war for decades) or at its 10% margin - when other industries operate at 1% to 3% margins and still produce profits at $3 billion (Costco) to $12-16 billion (Wal-Mart) in industries with WAY more competition than the oligopolpy of the oil industry. You are basically arguing for going back to Rockefellers' monopoly before it was broken up by anti-trust acts into the seven oil companies that exist today.

Exxon isn't investing a significant part of it's profits into renewable fuels, so all it is doing is sitting on its profits and $10 million+ pay packages for its executives (which is also put into its 'cost of operations' - this is how you inflate operating costs to show less profit, etc. Another way is advertising, i.e., spending extra billions on marketing/advertising, etc.)

Many oil companies set up corps in lower tax rate states or countries (like Saudi Arabia, The UAE, The Bahamas, etc) which can then bill inflated receipts to Exxon, et al. It's a win-win: Exxon pays lower taxes, and the subsidiaries/friendly companies get bigger recepits while paying lower or no taxes in their countries/states.

You seem to want to go back to the Standard Oil days.

Standard Oil was a huge, abusive monopoly until the U.S. anti-trust act broke it up into seven different oil companies (Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, et al.) Too bad the Republicans allowed four of those companies to merge back together. So much for more competition. Capitalism works best when it promotes competition and innovation - not oligopolies.

[RaiderH8r]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

Get real!

You can use all kinds of accounting tricks to depreciate or appreciate the cost of doing business.

Oil companies can use whatever numbers they want to account for the cost of goods or operations, (just like Halliburton's $6 six pack of soda or $100 charge for washing a bag of dirty laundry) especially when they own the subsidairies and/or interest in refineries. Bill can say he charged $1,000 for 'x, y, and z' - fine and dandy when Bill is your bro and the head of a company you have an interest in.

Your arguments are laughable. You are arguing that it's good for the US economy that Exxon charges US consumers double and that Exxon can't operate at 1/3 of its profit levels of $40 billion (which it was doing before the war for decades) or at its 10% margin - when other industries operate at 1% to 3% margins and still produce profits at $3 billion (Costco) to $12-16 billion (Wal-Mart) in industries with WAY more competition than the oligopolpy of the oil industry. You are basically arguing for going back to Rockefellers' monopoly before it was broken up by anti-trust acts into the seven oil companies that exist today.

Exxon isn't investing a significant part of it's profits into renewable fuels, so all it is doing is sitting on its profits and $10 million+ pay packages for its executives (which is also put into its 'cost of operations' - this is how you inflate operating costs to show less profit, etc. Another way is advertising, i.e., spending extra billions on marketing/advertising, etc.)

Many oil companies set up corps in lower tax rate states or countries (like Saudi Arabia, The UAE, The Bahamas, etc) which can then bill inflated receipts to Exxon, et al. It's a win-win: Exxon pays lower taxes, and the subsidiaries/friendly companies get bigger recepits while paying lower or no taxes in their countries/states.

You seem to want to go back to the Standard Oil days.

Standard Oil was a huge, abusive monopoly until the U.S. anti-trust act broke it up into seven different oil companies (Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, et al.) Too bad the Republicans allowed four of those companies to merge back together. So much for more competition. Capitalism works best when it promotes competition and innovation - not oligopolies.

No other industry is investigated as frequently as the oil and natural gas industry. They turn up nothing.

I simply pointed out the factual fall out of the tax package in the bill. You want to get into the Exxon/Standard Oil/Corporate bastard line of rhetoric and I'm not going to bite. My point was that Exxon WOULDN'T be subject to the tax package in Pelosi's bill so the Big Oil line she and her cohorts are using is BS. It would, however, make it less profitable for the independents who do produce in the US (90% of wells drilled) to operate. They close down and hand an even bigger market share to those at whom the package was pitched to be aiming, which isn't true. Bottom line is I'm the one arguing for greater competition in the industry and the fallout of Pelosi's bill ultimately gives larger market share over to those she purports to be going after. I'm promoting competition and to do that domestic independent drillers need access to the resource base and not to be taxed into extinction. I guarantee you the foreign nations doing business with Big Oil won't be running them out of their countries any time soon.

[Bronco Bob]

No other industry is investigated as frequently as the oil and natural gas industry. They turn up nothing.



Where did you come up with this little gem? Who exactly is doing all
this investigation of the oil companies?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Where did you come up with this little gem? Who exactly is doing all
this investigation of the oil companies?

Why, Ted Stevens!

(Those oil company execs quake in their boots at the mere mention of his name.)

;)

[lazarus4444]

Check out this inventor in Golden. I have helped him test and tune his car at my shop in Colorado Springs. He just got EPA Certified for 48.1 mpg highway driving and an increase of 15ft lbs of torque, not bad :strong:

http://www.prvperformance.com/

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/pintle-regulate.html

[cutthemdown]

That's stuff cool Lazarus but better gasoline technology will only stem the tide. We need cars that run on hydrogen or electricity.

[Bronco Bob]

That's stuff cool Lazarus but better gasoline technology will only stem the tide. We need cars that run on hydrogen or electricity.

If everyone installed solar panels on their roofs, they could generate a lot
of the electricity needed to power their homes and autos. It wouldn't
generate all that was needed, but it would be a huge chunk.

[defenseman]

If everyone installed solar panels on their roofs, they could generate a lot
of the electricity needed to power their homes and autos. It wouldn't
generate all that was needed, but it would be a huge chunk.

Praytell, what would be the cost of that? We all have 20 to 40K buckola's, possibly more depending on the house, to invest in solar power? Have you bought your system as of yet? If not, why not........dman

*Can you say "nuclear"? Soon enough it will be headed there. On a sidenote, numerous homeowner associations would make you tear the system down once it went up unless that association had it written into the by-laws of the association. Some systems can be quite bulky, the one's that aren't are quite expensive is my experience.

[Bronco Bob]

Praytell, what would be the cost of that? We all have 20 to 40K buckola's, possibly more depending on the house, to invest in solar power? Have you bought your system as of yet? If not, why not........dman


It sort of depends on what kind of system you are looking for, complete
independence, supplemental, back-up. Here are a couple of website
that do this sort of thing and their prices.

http://www.partsonsale.com/

http://www.wholesalesolar.com

Plus tips on how to save energy.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/StartHere/StartHere.html

And that's not factoring in the money you make by selling electricity
back to the power company. I'm looking into doing my house now.

[cutthemdown]

I think within the next 10-15 years you will see almost every home have some sort of solar power going on. It's a no brainer.

[cutthemdown]

some scientist in Australia are working on a solar powered hydrogen extractor. It takes seawater, uses solar power to extract that hydrogen, then uses the hydrogen to power up the home. Eventually with all the different things being tried something will gain popularity and become mainstream.

[defenseman]

I think within the next 10-15 years you will see almost every home have some sort of solar power going on. It's a no brainer.

Cost is the key....obviously. However, not until then. And you are correct, once it's cost feasible to the majority of homes, it is a no brainer..dman

[Bronco Bob]

I think within the next 10-15 years you will see almost every home have some sort of solar power going on. It's a no brainer.

On one of those websites it claims that the silicon in one ton of sand
has the potential to produce as much electricity as 500,000 tons of coal.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/StartHere/GRIDINTBallparkCost.html

[alkemical]

http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/solarpaint.htm

http://www.nanosolar.com/

[defenseman]

http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/solarpaint.htm

http://www.nanosolar.com/

Cost?...dman

[Bronco Bob]

http://www.nanogirl.com/museumfuture/solarpaint.htm

http://www.nanosolar.com/

A downside I see with this technology vs that of silicon solar cells is
the indium and even tin aren't that common of elements. (so called
tin cans actually are made of steel with a very thin coating of tin).
Where-as the beaches and deserts are filled with sand, which
is mostly silicon dioxide.
So this has the potential to be a more expensive product in the
long run as the price of indium and tin go up.

[alkemical]

A downside I see with this technology vs that of silicon solar cells is
the indium and even tin aren't that common of elements. (so called
tin cans actually are made of steel with a very thin coating of tin).
Where-as the beaches and deserts are filled with sand, which
is mostly silicon dioxide.
So this has the potential to be a more expensive product in the
long run as the price of indium and tin go up.

Yeah but i'm thinking like anything, this is the "first" version, and as more tech gets involved, materials will change.

[alkemical]

Cost?...dman

Call 'em up and ask them.

[cutthemdown]

I think you write the cost of solar power off on your taxes but I'm not sure about that.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Praytell, what would be the cost of that? We all have 20 to 40K buckola's, possibly more depending on the house, to invest in solar power? Have you bought your system as of yet? If not, why not........dman

*Can you say "nuclear"? Soon enough it will be headed there. On a sidenote, numerous homeowner associations would make you tear the system down once it went up unless that association had it written into the by-laws of the association. Some systems can be quite bulky, the one's that aren't are quite expensive is my experience.Very doubtful unless you and a few thousand others volunteer to store the nuclear waste in your basements.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Solar company eyes San Luis Valley (http://www.chieftain.com/business/1197015336/2)

MONTE VISTA - A local economic development group is trying to interest solar-power company SkyFuel in a location for a 5,000-acre plant a few miles northwest of Del Norte.

Company officials, who hope to break ground by 2010 on what eventually may be a 1,000-megawatt plant, toured the proposed site Tuesday with members of the Monte Vista Economic Development Corp.

http://www.chieftain.com/archive/2007/dec/7/bizSKYFUEL2.jpg

Eric John, vice president for project development, said SkyFuel is looking at possible sites across the West.

"This is the first one in the (San Luis) valley that we've taken a field trip on," he said.

The company, which has offices in Arvada, Albuquerque, N.M., and New York City, estimates that construction of the plant likely would proceed in phases.

Between five and 10 workers would be needed for each megawatt capacity constructed, according to Bill Felsher, the company’s vice president for project sales.

Maintenance and operation of the plant, if it's built to the 1,000-MW capacity, would require roughly 200 workers.

"It's not super-high maintenance but there would certainly be a need to have local support, and local jobs to operate and maintain the equipment," said William Felsher, SkyFuel's vice president for project sales. The project also would add to Rio Grande County's tax base, and Felsher said it was possible the plant could create a revenue-sharing program with landowners, similar to what's been done with some wind power projects in the state.

Charles Spielman, president of the economic development group, said the proposed 5,000 acres are split among nearly 60 landowners and include about 400 acres managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

He said he tried to avoid prime agriculture lands in looking for the site, although there are some farm and ranch lands and scattered houses on the site.

The land could either be bought or leased from the owners, John said.
CONT.

SkyFuel to use 'power tower,' salt to gather sun's energy

<table border="0" width="288"> <tbody><tr> <td>http://www.chieftain.com/archive/2007/dec/7/bizskyfuel3.jpg</td> </tr> <tr> <td> SKYFUEL COURTESY IMAGE

Solar heat is concentrated by the long mirrors onto the linear power tower, heating salt to its melting point. The molten salt then is used to make steam and drive a generator, producing electricity.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table> THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

MONTE VISTA - Should SkyFuel decide to locate a 1,000-megawatt solar power plant near Del Norte, the company hopes to use a new technology that would make solar power cheaper and easier to get to market.
The Department of Energy awarded the company a $435,000 grant at the end of last month to continue research on its Linear Power Tower.
The system uses a Fresnel-lens style array of mirrors, the same style of lens commonly used in flattened magnifying glasses, stop lights and lighthouses, said William Felsher, vice president of project sales for the company. The style would allow the company to lay its panels out flat close to the ground in a North-South configuration, and tilt them side to side to catch the sun's daily journey from East to West across the sky. The system is cheaper and easier to maintain than systems using smaller, pole-mounted mirrors, which each must have their own motors and mounting gear.


The long thin panels reflect the sun's light toward a single horizontal "tower" to gather the heat.
The company believes that the power towers, along with the high temperature and storage capabilities of molten salt, will make its power less expensive and easier to distribute to market. The company says a five-gallon bucket of molten salt can store the energy needed for a person for an entire day.


SkyFuel hopes to build the power tower by 2011.


---------------------------------------------------------

Big Solar Thermal Power Plants Planned for Florida, California (http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/archive.cfm/pubDate=%7Bd%20%272007-10-03%27%7D)

Florida Power and Light (FPL) announced on September 26th that it plans to build a 300-megawatt solar thermal power plant, which will be the state's first commercial solar thermal power facility. The utility will first build a 10-megawatt power plant using technology from Ausra, Inc., which employs flat arrays of Fresnel lenses to focus the sun's heat. Most of today's commercial solar thermal power plants are using parabolic mirrors to focus the sun's heat, a technology that's presumably more expensive and harder to maintain than Fresnel lenses would be, but Ausra's technology is as yet unproven commercially. According to the FPL Group, FPL's parent company, the initial plant in Florida will be expanded to 300 megawatts if the Ausra technology meets its cost and performance goals. The FPL Group also plans to develop 200 megawatts of solar thermal power in California within the next seven years. See the FPL Group press release and the description of the technology on the Ausra Web site.

[cutthemdown]

I agree it's the power of the sun that has the potential to be a great energy source.

Now with the nuclear power I have a question. I read that the French reprocess the stuff and it eliminates much of the waste problem. Then I hear on here France has a huge problem at where they can store there waste.

Which is it can we store the waste or is nuclear power off the table? IMO if we could manage the waste it seems like a no brainer we could add some power plants.

[cutthemdown]

Beerslug there is nothing in the calif desert except sun and sand so I could see solar plants all over it by 2015. It seems like a no brainer to me.

What about areas that don't get as much sun and have harsher winters? can solar be used there also or will it only be cost effective in places like Calif and Fla?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Beerslug there is nothing in the calif desert except sun and sand so I could see solar plants all over it by 2015. It seems like a no brainer to me.

What about areas that don't get as much sun and have harsher winters? can solar be used there also or will it only be cost effective in places like Calif and Fla?Colorado averages over 300 days of Sun a year.
Solar power research & development is leaping ahead faster than ever before.

Which is it can we store the waste or is nuclear power off the table? IMO if we could manage the waste it seems like a no brainer we could add some power plants.No one wants it and Yucca Mtn is now probably off the table.

[alkemical]

We also have to maximize power options per "region". What works in the S.W, will not be as efficient in the N.E - so we need to work on solutions that maximize the area and the power options each produces.

There isn't going to be a "one sized fits all" solution. This is what people have to understand.

[alkemical]

I don't know if this is exactly what beerslug was sort of showing a few posts back, but it's interesting:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/12/18/fuel-carbon-dioxide-print.html

Device Taps Sunshine to Convert CO2 Into Fuel
Tracy Staedter, Discovery News


Dec. 18, 2007 -- What if, instead of spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, factories or power plants could recycle the global warming gas and turn it into fuel?

Researchers have developed a technique that does just that. The Sunshine to Petrol project at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, uses sunlight and steam to neutralize CO2 and ultimately turn it into a clean energy source, such as hydrogen.

"This would allow you to use CO2 one more time. You wouldn't throw it out into the atmosphere; you'd turn it into gasoline," said Rich Diver, principal member of the technical staff and lead engineer on the project.

That strategy could appeal to big CO2 emitters like factories and power plants, which could potentially increase their revenues by producing another fuel source from a gas otherwise wasted into the atmosphere.

The Sunshine to Petrol concept relies on a device developed by Diver and his team called a Counter-Rotating-Ring Receiver/Reactor/Recuperator, or CR5 for short.

At the heart of the prototype CR5 is a stack of 14 ceramic discs about 1/2-inch thick and about 12 inches in diameter. The outer ring of each disc is comprised of an inch of fairly porous material made from ferrite materials, basically iron oxide and other ingredients, including cobalt and zirconia.

The discs rotate inside a vacuum-sealed contraption that slowly turns each one in the opposite direction at about one revolution per minute. As they spin, the discs encounter two different zones where chemical reactions take place: a zone of sunlight (at the 12 o'clock position) and a zone of steam (at the 6 o'clock position).

In the zone of sunlight, solar energy concentrated by a parabolic mirror into a high-temperature beam, shines onto the porous portion of ring. The heat -- 1,400 to 1,500 degrees Centrigrade -- reduces the iron oxide material, breaking the molecular bonds and releasing oxygen molecules.

Next, the disc moves into the zone of steam. In the prototype version, the steam is simply H2O, but it could also contain CO2. The oxygen molecules in the steam glom onto the ferrite ring and replace those oxygen molecules that were previously driven away in the first step. What remains are two molecules of hydrogen that can be captured and eventually used, for example, to power a hydrogen fuel cell.

In the case of mixing CO2 with the steam, most of the oxygen molecules would glom onto the ferrite ring. The remaining molecules of hydrogen and carbon monoxide would bind to form methanol. This could be used as a fuel or synthesized into a petroleum substitute.

"The solar reactor is innovative and allows them to perform both steps of the thermo-chemical cycle in the same reactor," said professor Aldo Steinfeld, editor of the ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering and head of the Solar Technology Laboratory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.

The big challenges lie in the device's efficiency, he said.

"The rate of radiation heat transfer given by concentrated solar energy to the rate of the chemical reaction given by the kinetics of the process need to be matched," said Steinfeld.

Diver and his team are working to improve the efficiency, but think it could be a decade or more before such a device would be available.

[Bronco Bob]

I don't know if this is exactly what beerslug was sort of showing a few posts back, but it's interesting:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/12/18/fuel-carbon-dioxide-print.html

Device Taps Sunshine to Convert CO2 Into Fuel
Tracy Staedter, Discovery News


Dec. 18, 2007 -- What if, instead of spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, factories or power plants could recycle the global warming gas and turn it into fuel?

Researchers have developed a technique that does just that. The Sunshine to Petrol project at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, uses sunlight and steam to neutralize CO2 and ultimately turn it into a clean energy source, such as hydrogen.



We already have something that converts sunlight and CO2 into fuel.
They are called plants.

[alkemical]

We already have something that converts sunlight and CO2 into fuel.
They are called plants.

Oh i'm sorry, i didn't realize mr. fusion was out for cars already.

[The Lone Bolt]

The energy bill is a bunch of political theater. Breakthoughs in LED lightbulbs and EV batteries will mean that those targets would have been reached (in fact far exceeded) by 2020 without any energy bill.

More good news for the future of transportation, the EV:

Stanford's nanowire battery holds 10 times the charge of existing ones

BY DAN STOBER

Courtesy Nature Nanotechnology silicon nanowires


Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.

The new version, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers.

"It's not a small improvement," Cui said. "It's a revolutionary development."

The breakthrough is described in a paper, "High-performance lithium battery anodes using silicon nanowires," published online Dec. 16 in Nature Nanotechnology, written by Cui, his graduate chemistry student Candace Chan and five others.

The greatly expanded storage capacity could make Li-ion batteries attractive to electric car manufacturers. Cui suggested that they could also be used in homes or offices to store electricity generated by rooftop solar panels.

"Given the mature infrastructure behind silicon, this new technology can be pushed to real life quickly," Cui said.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

The era of the ICE is coming to an end.

[Bronco Bob]

Oh i'm sorry, i didn't realize mr. fusion was out for cars already.

No, but Mr. Bio-Diesel is.

(Forget ethanol, it takes almost as much energy to make as you get back.)

[alkemical]

No, but Mr. Bio-Diesel is.

(Forget ethanol, it takes almost as much energy to make as you get back.)

Not with the new nano-algae application i saw for using and creating methanol - the E85 engines would run on it. bada bing

[defenseman]

Colorado averages over 300 days of Sun a year.
Solar power research & development is leaping ahead faster than ever before.
No one wants it and Yucca Mtn is now probably off the table.

Pretty blanket statement wouldn't you say? Your answer should have been, Bronco beerslug doesn't want it, therefore, yucca mountain should be shelved...dman

[alkemical]

Beerslug and others have a valid concern, what do you do with the waste?

Until we can come up with a "time machine" to accelerate the waste into an inert material, i think it's a valid question.

[baja]

The energy bill is a bunch of political theater. Breakthoughs in LED lightbulbs and EV batteries will mean that those targets would have been reached (in fact far exceeded) by 2020 without any energy bill.

More good news for the future of transportation, the EV:




http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

The era of the ICE is coming to an end.

This is fabulous news!!!

The battery has always been the weak link in a solar system.

This will revolutionize the off the grid potential