The McCain Prize
June 25th, 2008 at 09:02am Mark Noonan
For energy independence, as noted by Jonathan Adler at NRO:
Speaking Monday at Fresno State University in California, Sen. John McCain put forward what may be the most promising and important energy-policy proposal of the campaign: a $300 million prize for the development of advanced battery technology. “In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure,” he noted. Yet rather than have Washington pick winners and losers from within the energy industry, McCain suggested that the government should reward innovation and actual achievement. “From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success.”
As outlined by McCain, the prize would be paid the first innovator to develop a battery technology that “leapfrogs” existing electric car and plug-in hybrid technology, in terms of size, capacity, power, and cost. The aim is a battery technology that capable of powering motor vehicles at 30 percent of current costs. This would be a significant technical breakthrough, greatly enhancing the ability of battery-powered vehicles to compete in the marketplace.
Government-sponsored prizes for innovation are based upon the same principle as the patent system: Encourage innovation by rewarding inventors and entrepreneurs with the promise of super-competitive returns. A patent provides such a reward by giving the innovator a temporary monopoly for his invention. A prize goes one step further by placing a bounty on a particular type of innovation, increasing incentives for potential investors.
$300 million is a good deal of money, and I wish now that I’d bothered to study engineering and that sort of stuff like my Dad wanted me to (well, he never said, study engineering, but I got the distinct impression that the man who worked on the space program and the Stealth fighter wanted very much for one of his children to follow in his footsteps). Be that as it may, it is a great incentive and rather than having some bureaucrat - under pressure from whomever donated the most - select which research programs to subsidize, just throw the prize out there and left people self-select themselves for the effort, and the reward (’cause it wouldn’t just be that $300 million - there would also be the patent rights, and the bonanza of cash for that). This is the sort of real change McCain offers as opposed to Obama’s false change, which is really just warmed-over Carterism.
Now, any techno-geeks out there in the audience have any ideas on how to leapfrog to this new technology?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, General Government, Republicans
51 Comments
1. neocon | June 25th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Brilliant idea. But I have heard the Democrats plan to hit the winner with the “windfall profits” tax.
LOL
peace, neocon
2. neocon | June 25th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Meanwhile, the Democrats have been crafting
their brilliant plan, and no doubt, this will resolve many of our current energy problems:
(courtesy of Powerline)
1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, at wholesale or at retail in an area and during a period of an energy emergency, gasoline or any other petroleum distillate covered by a proclamation issued under paragraph (2) at a price that–
(A) is unconscionably excessive; and
(B) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage of the circumstances related to an energy emergency to increase prices unreasonably.
Got that? Next question is, how do we know when a price is “unconscionably excessive,” “unfair” and “unreasonable?” Read on:
(3) FACTORS CONSIDERED- In determining whether a person has violated paragraph (1), there shall be taken into account, among other factors–
(A) whether the amount charged by such person for the applicable gasoline or other petroleum distillate at a particular location in an area covered by a proclamation issued under paragraph (2) during the period such proclamation is in effect–
(i) grossly exceeds the average price at which the applicable gasoline or other petroleum distillate was offered for sale by that person during the 30 days prior to such proclamation;
(ii) grossly exceeds the price at which the same or similar gasoline or other petroleum distillate was readily obtainable in the same area from other competing sellers during the same period;
(iii) reasonably reflected additional costs, not within the control of that person, that were paid, incurred, or reasonably anticipated by that person, or reflected additional risks taken by that person to produce, distribute, obtain, or sell such product under the circumstances; and
(iv) was substantially attributable to local, regional, national, or international market conditions; and
(B) whether the quantity of gasoline or other petroleum distillate the person produced, distributed, or sold in an area covered by a proclamation issued under paragraph (2) during a 30-day period following the issuance of such proclamation increased over the quantity that that person produced, distributed, or sold during the 30 days prior to such proclamation, taking into account usual seasonal demand variations.
3. js | June 25th, 2008 at 9:22 am
you would have to make electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen for hydrogen batteries 1200 times more efficient than the cost to produce the hydrogen like Bob Boyce did
4. Bigfoot | June 25th, 2008 at 9:39 am
just throw the prize out there and left people self-select themselves
“left people”? Freudian slip, Mark?
I wish now that I’d bothered to study engineering
I did study engineering - and lived to tell about it.
you would have to make electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen for hydrogen batteries 1200 times more efficient than the cost to produce the hydrogen like Bob Boyce did
That’s the trouble with hydrogen, whether it’s reacted with oxygen in a fuel cell, or with a metal oxide or hydroxide in certain batteries. Unlike hydrocarbons and radioactive materials, elemental hydrogen is not found naturally on earth. Obtaining hydrogen from a compound thereof generally consumes energy (such as in electrolysis), which leads to the question of where that energy comes from.
5. Retired Spook | June 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am
But I have heard the Democrats plan to hit the winner with the “windfall profits” tax.
neocon, I know you say this in jest, but, in reality, the windfall profits tax is the centerpiece of the Dems energy plan. without the windfall profits tax, the rest of their plan, such as it is, to provide incentives for R & D in alternative/renewable energy won’t exist.
Regarding your second post, if you examine Democrat policies over the years, both proposed and implemented, they largely consist of punishing behavior that Dems deem unacceptable. What a sad, sad commentary on our society.
6. neocon | June 25th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Spook,
You’re spot on. I have always wondered how Gore’s $175K speaking fee is not subjected to the windfall profits tax.
The left can only demonize others in their effort to pacify their base irregardless of any actual measurable results.
Actual results take a back seat to intent. That fact has yet to resonate with those who want “change”.
peace, neocon
7. js | June 25th, 2008 at 10:18 am
“Obtaining hydrogen from a compound thereof generally consumes energy (such as in electrolysis), which leads to the question of where that energy comes from.”
“That’s the trouble with hydrogen”
people who think like that really are the ones that condemn us to our current state…you just hook it up to a solar array..no problem….free hydrogen from free energy….
8. Magnum Serpentine | June 25th, 2008 at 10:20 am
You shouldn’t have to put a bounty on the price of energy. If we put the effort to improve our energy situation that was similar to getting us to the moon, we would be able to solve this thing now.
And of course neocon is against price gouging legislation. What do you want neocon, to give the big wig oil companies the right to rip the citizens off?
Citizens who read this, remember it was the republic party that derailed and obstructed (as usual) the Price Gouging legislation. If it had passed the price of gas would be at 2 dollars or less. Thank you republics for showing us you support big wig big greed big profit big ripoff oil over the citizens. Once again, the obstructionist republics strike at the citizens wallet.
9. Magnum Serpentine | June 25th, 2008 at 10:28 am
One wonders if windfall profits were applied to big wig big greed big profit big ripoff oil if the oil companies would do their best to lower their profits and lower our gas prices. Of course the obstructionist republic party will say that the price will go up, but the more money big greed oil makes the more the windfall tax will be applied. No other company makes the kind of profits above operating cost that big wig big greed big profit big ripoff oil makes. Its time to re-regulate big wig oil and time to force them to lower their price gouging prices.
One also wonders if big wig big greed big profit big ripoff oil were to drill on the land they have now (That is full of oil) if that alone would lower the price of gas to 1.30 a gallon. That of course is why big wig big greed big profit big ripoff oil is not drilling on land they already have (from Democratic and Demo-publican sources). It would ruin their profits.
10. js | June 25th, 2008 at 10:31 am
so if windfall profits are extracted for an invention…then shouldnt it be called the stone age tax for inhibiting exploration, effectively keeping mankind in the stone age of hydrocarbon?
face it…we are already burning hydrogen…with carbon…hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe….we just have to change sources…..
11. js | June 25th, 2008 at 10:33 am
“And of course neocon is against price gouging legislation”
what is that, a mind squirt?
check the price of gas….they be way slow in thinking on this level….get real
12. Retired Spook | June 25th, 2008 at 10:38 am
neocon,
Can you imagine the string of expletives erupting from our Lefties if Obama is elected and we see double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, double digit interest rates, gas lines and healthcare rationing and have to reinstate the “misery index”. Remember “turn down your thermostat and put on a sweater”? Because of our age, sources of income and where we live, my wife and I are largely insulated from the damage that a President Obama is likely to do, but I do feel a degree of empathy for the younger generation who overwhelmingly support him. Some lessons are just learned the hard way.
13. Retired Spook | June 25th, 2008 at 10:58 am
One wonders if windfall profits were applied to big wig big greed big profit big ripoff oil if the oil companies would do their best to lower their profits and lower our gas prices.
MS, it’s been tried before with less than satisfactory results.
Besides, any board of director who advocated “minimizing” profits would be drawn and quartered at the next stockholders meeting, if not sooner.
Of course the obstructionist republic party will say that the price will go up, but the more money big greed oil makes the more the windfall tax will be applied.
Yeah, MS, that’ll show ‘em. What are you, 12?
No other company makes the kind of profits above operating cost that big wig big greed big profit big ripoff oil makes.
Care to back up that absurd claim with some statistics?
14. David B. Schmidt | June 25th, 2008 at 11:05 am
RS-Been through it once and buffering myself for it to come to pass if Sen. Obama is elected. Really think he could outperform Pres. Carter on the misery index.
One little peeve–with all them attorneys up on capital hill–you would think they could have a collective mindfart and realize they are the only ones taking “windfall profits” from big oil. Maybe they just like the term because it sounds catchy for the slow that are beneath them.
15. The New Conservative | June 25th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I’m going to get started on this right now. I need $300 million. Too bad once I win the dems will try to take most of my hard earn winnings. Maybe I won’t do it after all. I’d hate for that windfall profits tax to get me.
http://www.thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
16. OhioOrrin | June 25th, 2008 at 11:51 am
neocon - “excessive” “unfair” & “unreasonable” must relate to acquisition cost.
therefore if wholesale gas cost the dealer $4/gal then, using oil executives SWORN congressional testimony of 7% profit, the retail cost should be $4.28/gal REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
also, will someone please explain how a “windfall profits tax” will LOWER the retail price.
17. Brian (Boston) | June 25th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Didn’t the EV-1 have a far superior battery? Too bad GM decided it wasn’t a worthy investment.
18. Smelly Cat | June 25th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
No it was not superior but initially it was an all electric car with no alternate power source.
The first generation EV1s used lead-acid batteries in 1996 (as model year 1997) and a second generation batch with nickel metal hydride batteries in 1999. Some of the Gen 1 EV1s were refurbished and upgraded to Panasonic lead-acid batteries.
The Gen 1 cars got 55 to 75 miles (90 to 120 km) per charge with the Delco-manufactured lead-acid batteries, 75 to 100 miles (120-to-160 km) with the Gen 2 Panasonic lead-acid batteries, and 75 to 150 miles (120 to 240 km) per charge with Gen 2 Ovonic nickel-metal hydride batteries. Recharging took as much as eight hours for a full charge (although one could get an 80% charge in two to three hours). The battery pack consisted of 26 of 12 V, 60 Ah lead-acid batteries holding 67.4 MJ (18.7 kWh) of energy or 26 13.2-volt, 77 Ah nickel-metal hydride batteries which held 95.1 MJ (26.4 kWh) of energy.
19. Zach | June 25th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I thought the EV-1 used a lead acid battery. If I remember correctly, GM proposed that it could get about 80-90 miles before it needed to be recharged.. Actual tests proved that EV-1 could only get an average of 45-55 miles before it needed to be recharged.
Of course, this was well before Lithium Ion
20. Longitudinal Larry | June 25th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The Problem Of Determining Longitude Was Solved Due To A Prize.
It encouraged a clock maker, not a scientist to work on it and the rest is history. Here is hoping the amature chemists & engineers out there or those with full time jobs working independent of their automobile companies will now be encouraged to work like hell on this.
You can argue the car companies are hard at work on it but thats a small talent pool assigned to this task. Open it to non auto R&D People and see what can happen.
It worked for Longitude.
21. Danish Artist | June 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Magnum Stupidity,
“Big wig big greed” oil does not profit only from gasoline sales. They squeeze every product they can out of oil from plastics, packaging materials, lubricants, coke (SAR don’t get excited it’s not that kind of coke), asphalt to light end fuels and gas products.
Are you one of those ignorant liberal fools that think a barrel of oil can be converted to gasoline only?
for your own sake, stop repeating the liberal talking points. It only embarasses you further.
What are the liberal democrats doing to solve this problem? What will they do after the election where they may have an incentive to fix it?
they surely have no incentive now. They put politics before the good of the country.
22. '08ama | June 25th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
John McSame’s budgets must be overly loaded with pork because he keeps telling us that he will pay for all his ‘plans’ by simply cutting pork out of his budgets.
23. '08ama | June 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
The simple act of eliminating the ‘Enron loophole’ which allows energy speculators to run wild, would immediately cut the price of oil by 50%.
24. OhioOrrin | June 25th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
08ama - (cute name btw) don’t know bout the enron loophole so maybe, but also consider -
speculators should be required BY REGULATION to take ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION of the commodity (oil) at some point in the logistics train from exploration to retail.
guarantee speculators would drop right out of the equation…even tho cramer says speculators only account for ~$2-3/brl.
then we must insist OUR fed govt restore sound money so the dollar regains value.
25. Mateo Giovanni | June 25th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
You Fascists post so fast it is hard to figure my place in your rat line. Watch the movie about the electric car. A guy did invent the super battery, but GM bought it, and now have hidden it. Now before any of you call me a liberal use those 85 IQ’s, and tell me the full Bill of Rights!! Maybe the year it was ratified!! How bout them Articles of Confederation as well!!! See ya Freaks later!!
Peace and Freedom
26. Right Wing News&hellip | June 25th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
My Favorite 40 Blogs For 2008 (Version 2.0) - Right Wing News
It’s time for me to rank my favorite blogs for the 2nd quarter of 2008. Do keep in mind that as the quarter has progressed, some blogs have, of course, moved up and others have dropped, based on how often…
27. Heyhey | June 25th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Guy Caruso of the Energy Information Administration — the government’s “top energy forecaster” — said expanding offshore oil drilling would do little to lower gas prices:
“It would be a relatively small effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies on,” Caruso said during a briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the EIA’s new long-term international energy forecast. “It doesn’t affect prices that much.”
28. FmrMarine | June 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Danish;
>>>>“It would be a relatively small effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies on,” Caruso said during a briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the EIA’s new long-term international energy forecast. “It doesn’t affect prices that much.”>>>
Isnt THAT the mantra the left sang TEN YEARS AGO…….HELLLLLOOOOOO Mc FLY is ANYBODY HOME??
Rush did some research a battery powered SMALL car over it’s lifetime uses a much as the BIGGEST hummer driving over 100,000 mi in it’s lifetime.
The energy to mine the lead, ship the ore, smelt it, roll it into sheets, ship it to a battery works, produce batteries, ship them to the US automakers.and install them into autos.
The ELECTRICITY produced to reCHARGE them. After all this they last 2-3 years need to be recycled….more shippoing and REPLACED with new…..WOW what a savings……
Battery cars are a liberals WET DREAM !
29. FmrMarine | June 25th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
magnumdummy;
>>>>”One wonders if windfall profits were applied to big wig big greed big profit big ripoff oil if the oil companies would do their best to lower their profits and lower our gas prices. Of course the obstructionist republic party will say that the price will go up, but the more money big greed oil makes the more the windfall tax will be applied. No other company makes the kind of profits above operating cost that big wig big greed big profit big ripoff oil makes. Its time to re-regulate big wig oil and time to force them to lower their price gouging prices.”>>>
SOOO 8% net profit is obscene?
You may want to rethink who the “greedy” recipients of these “windfall” profits are.
LIKE……UMMM…. pension funds, 401K’s, stockholders….teachers unions, teamsters, bricklayers, grocery store clerks…WOW how “greedy” of them.
NOW… lets look at the funds that ole john edwards worked for, or chelsey clinton works for……..CAN YOU SAY 87% NET profit?????
HMMMM dont recall hearing about that.
SO how much NET profit does the govt. make in the form of TAXES on a refined barrel of oil?? More than 8%….
If so do we expect the govt to pay taxes on the WINDFALL? especially that they did NOTHING to mine, produce, or sell the product, as the oil companies did…TELL US…We want to know!
30. FmrMarine | June 25th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
mag;
Here is an interesting quote,
“consumers now pay about 46 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes. That’s not including taxes paid directly to the government by the oil companies and passed onto consumers. As the inestimable economist John Lott has pointed out, in the past 25 years oil companies have paid more than three times in taxes what they have made in profits.”
31. Cooldown | June 25th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Government offers a huge $300 million prize; sounds extremly liberal if you ask me. What happened to the Repug spirit of let market forces take care of the energy crisis? I am sure after big oil squeezes the last dime out of every American it will turn to other revenue sources; maybe battery manufacturing.
32. BARRASSO | June 25th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
“Rush did some research” I actually laughed out loud at that.
33. Danish Artist | June 25th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
BarrASSOLE,
“Research” you should try it.
Cooldown, the liberals already give money for research - and just what do they have to show for it? There is a business that all they do is research, show some progress on paper and really don’t have to build a prototype or prove anything (solutions to climate change) and they can receive government grants.
That is the liberal way. The non-liberal way is to reward the achievement. Let someone develop something at their expense, build a tangible prototype and be rewarded. The liberal ways just hands money out to their special interests and they really do not have to show anything for it. Their liberal senator will protect them.
Liberal short-sightedness at work again. They created this crisis because of their special interests and they will not solve it because of their special interests and putting politics before the interests of this country.
34. js | June 25th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
you idiots need to get back on topic….new technology….about new fields of energy…new discoveries and advancing current technology…not how much the government is taking for taxes….
you spent the whole day on this and still have not touched on the issue morons…..
35. js | June 25th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_mzadEFuP4
36. js | June 25th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Check this guy out.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147
Eyewitness testimony.
37. Kahn | June 26th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Drilling off Americas shore and in Alaska will take American (often union) workers.
And building and running new nuclear energy plants CAN’T be outsourced to China.
Think about it.
38. Kahn | June 26th, 2008 at 1:52 am
js,
1. Oil - used for WAY more than just cars. Need it. Going to need better electricity sources if we’re going to replace it in vehicles. You’ve got to charge the batteries somehow, and hydrogen needs to be extracted somehow.
2. Natural Gas - clean and efficient. Plants using this are good. But it’s still a fossil fuel that will eventually run out.
3. Coal - now “cleaner”. Several different types. Surface mining is frowned upon for aesthetic reasons. Fossil so it will end.; But there IS a bunch of it.
4. Hydro-electric. How about instead of big huge plants we put small paddle wheels into all the rivers, creeks, and rivers.? That’s how the whole northeast was powered before electricity (mills).
5. Wind - well Teddy Kennedy put the kabash on wind. We should overturn his restrictions and put up more wind mills, including Cape Cod.
6. Nuclear - we should import the French breeder reactor technology and build standardized plants like they do. That way the waste is minimized.
7. Solar. Still not economically feasible (apparently). We should cover the western deserts with solar farms. California has one, and Nevada is building a big one. There should be more.
But, well liberals are against every single one of the above except for solar. And magic and hope are not actual energy sources.
39. kjstrouble | June 26th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Kahn,
You can bet the next thing you will hear is how the solar farms in the desert are hurting some small animal - and OMG they HAVE TO GO!!!!
I mean they want the dams to be removed in the NW so the salmon can swim up stream and spawn. Doesn’t matter that the release of all that water could cause flooding down stream, or that the loss of electricity generating power will cripple the area.
40. HarkeysBar | June 26th, 2008 at 10:23 am
John McCain admits that his energy policy consists of nothing other than mind games.
“I don’t see an immediate relief,. But I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist, and in the view of many experts that do exist off our coasts, is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial.”
McCain’s argument is that speculators will magically drive the price of oil down when they learn that the federal government has opened up ANWR and other offshore drilling sites; in other words, treat the market like a crap shoot and hope things fix themselves. Here’s an idea: Why don’t we go after these irresponsible crooks and bring the price of oil down to it’s legitimate supply and demand level? In fact, according to experts, these people are directly responsible for artificially inflating gas prices to the extent that it’s costing Americans a half trillion dollars a year.
41. Jeremiah | June 26th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
$140 A BARREL!!!
DOW -300!!!
**Faints**
42. js | June 26th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
whats really insulting is all the money the US Govt has spent for studiing new energy sources and they have not done one thing to actually make the manufacturing of solar panels cheap enough so that every US household can use them.
got on google and the prices they want would be as much as a new car….yet…the actual cost of making thin film solar panels is pennies per square inch….you could put the stuff on the roofs of houses and totally remove homes from the energy grid for under $500 if we cut the profit gauging idiots out of the factor
if our country could pick up from the great depression and turn this nation into an industrial powerhouse that lead the world to defeat facism in WWII, we can make ourselves independent of foreign oil in we put our minds and backs to it
43. Kahn | June 26th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Harkey - thats not the way it works. Oil speculators would immediately start selling oil short if we opened up new areas. And well, yah - this is a long term thing isn’t it? What about his nuclear energy propsals? Knee-jerk no on those also?
What energy do YOU propose? Not McCain, not Obama, YOU? Before you answer, better check the official liberal positions. And why won’t you join us in demanding the overturn of the windmill restrictions Ted Kennedy put in place all across the country to kill the Cape Cod windmill project? Really, do you liberals really care about this stuff or not?
44. HarkeysBar | June 26th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Kahn,
You don’t know me Kahn, but I respect your reply. You stay on topic for the most part. Based
on my position ,on energy in this case, you fire back with 6 questions and 3 actual sentences . Hardly debate….
“Harkey - thats not the way it works.(1)
Oil speculators would immediately start selling oil short if we opened up new areas.” (1)
Before you answer, better check the official liberal positions. (1)
3 sentences total…. :(
This one first….”Before you answer, better check the official liberal positions.”
You don’t know me….
Regarding Nuclear Energy, I’m all for it as long as there is a plan implemented to store or dispose of the waste material safely and environmentally,which isn’t always the case(I will cite numerous Federal cases if needed). Obama has flip flopped a little on the nuclear power issue but I agree with him when he states that it’s only part of the solution.
As I stated above, McCain is essentially going to “treat the market like a crap shoot and hope things fix themselves.” The problem is the Oil companies will manipulate the market again( you stated above “selling oil short”), as we all know is happening now. Gas prices are really high right now but we have been really been spoiled over the years with our cheap oil/gas.
Regarding wind power, I’m all for it. Unfortunately I don’t live in MA so I can’t try to vote Kennedy out. He didn’t restrict wind power all over the country, from my understanding of it.
He delayed it which happens all the time. It can be brought to a vote again and hoepfully it will pass.
45. Kahn | June 27th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Harkey, that because I’d stated my positions earlier and in several other subject strings.
1. Cite your cases. No-one has ever died as the result of a nuclear power plant accident in the United States. No-one, not ever. AND, the breeder reactor technology as used by the French (and others) produces a minimum amount of waste. We should start building them immediately.
The Kennedy windmill bill imposes strict “environmental study” requirements on windmill projects. You’re right. It doesn’t kill them, it just makes them much harder to get approved. This law applies everywhere in the US. And yes, it should be overturned.
Good though, you agree the wind thing should be fixed and that nuclear should at least be considered.
Obama said today that he hoped to have us only 30% dependent on foreign oil by 2030. Note also that he wants to trash NAFTA. NAFTA, as you may know is a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. You might want to read up on where we actually get most of the oil we use. (Hint: Mexico and Canada). So I can certainly see how trashing our trade agreement with our two major sources of oil would help. Yep.
Opening up additional areas that actually have oil in the Rockies, Alaska, and off shore would help us be independent as we transition to nuclear and later wind, solar, and possibly micro-hydro. We will still need petroleum, because it is used for many other things besides fuel. You’re probably typing on it. Natural gas and coal can be a buffer also. Biofuel can’t get us there. And it can mess up the food supply.
So, OUR plan eases stress NOW and gives us a buffer to transition. OUR plan gives us clean nuclear power. The oil will be drilled by Americans. The nuclear plants will be built, maintained, and run by Americans.
But what exactly IS the liberal” plan? Tax the oil companies? Force them to drill in the areas they have leases for where there is no oil? Start investigations? And trash the trade agreement with our two largest sources of oil. Sorry, but this falls short in my mind. And if that is the position you take going into November you will take the certain win you had coming after Bush and piss it out the window.
Just my opinion of course.
46. HarkeysBar | June 27th, 2008 at 10:44 am
“1. Cite your cases. No-one has ever died as the result of a nuclear power plant accident in the United States. No-one, not ever. AND, the breeder reactor technology as used by the French (and others) produces a minimum amount of waste. We should start building them immediately.”
I agree, People have not died during a nuclear accident but many people have become terminally ill due to the poorly planned storage of the waste (example: leaking into ground water) produced by the plants. If a plan is in place to dispose of the waste safely then I’m all for it.
I may vote for McCain but I’m not quite sure yet. Regarding energy, I’m leaning with McCain’s plan thus far.
47. Viking Ship Model&hellip | July 21st, 2008 at 2:26 am
Viking Ship Model
How would you like to look over the shoulder of some of the best engine tuners in the World? If so the Engine Analysis Software will allow you to do that easily.
48. TampaBayRayz-4-evah-don't-mess | July 21st, 2008 at 5:16 am
24. OhioOrrin | June 25th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
This part,
I like: “…then we must insist OUR fed govt restore sound money so the dollar regains value….”
This part I find less tolerable than any of the ideas expressed by the B4V proprietors or regulators:
“…speculators should be required BY REGULATION to take ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION of the commodity (oil) at some point in the logistics train from exploration to retail…”
Sorry, but Fascism, Nazism and Soviet Communism aren’t my bag!
Aside from being completely antithetical to freedom, your idea of trying to use the long arm of the law to prevent Americans from earning a living in the profession of your choice makes you identical to Frist, Kyl, Lieberman, Alberto Gonzales and Tipper Gore, as far as I’m concerned.
But never mind the morality of it. Do you think there’s something inherently wrong with free-market capitalism? I didn’t think so, based upon your call for a monetarist central bank policy.
I know Americans love their cop shows and worship at the high altar of the PROSECUTOR, but do you really think American energy traders who start and settle their trades in cash and love what they do are going to STOP because of some punk law?
One of the great things about free-markets is that they always find a way. You’ll take away Americans right to trade energy futures in cash, so traders will use off-shore custodial accounts. You’ll have a law that would close down the CBOT, MERC and NYMEX? So, Americans will do their trading on London’s ICE and on the Winnipeg exchange over the net. You’ll make it a felony then for any US resident to SETTLE an energy trade anywhere in the world in cash? People will MOVE!
I’m no Republican but you won’t find a stronger believer in free-markets than me. I’ve long wished that the Democratic Party become more about civil rights and civil liberties and less about utopian goals of saving the world. Because no matter how well-meaning Americans are, they always screw it up by overkill.
Your view of “speculators” is a perfect example. Sure, speculation is part of the high price of oil. So? That’s the free-market. It’s exactly why I probably agree with all of the Republicans here about Hillary Clinton’s old health-care plan. It turned doctors into COPS and made sure nothing changed with regard to affordability just more bureaucracy.
It’s why I object to USA PATRIOT ACTS and UIGEA. It’s turned US banks into COPS.
I’m going to reveal AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH here. Who exactly do you think pays for Democratic campaigns? $5 online Obama contributors? You must be kidding. The entertainment industry, the bar, the AFL-CIO, and the Financial industry are the sources of Democratic campaign funds. The rest of corporate America is the source of Republican campaign funds.
Besides, when I read phrases like “speculators” I’m reminded of a Europe my family fled. You know who came to power griping about “speculators” shorting the Lira and D-Mark, right? Yep. Mussolini and Hitler.
When I read a Bush/McCain opponent going on about taking away freedoms, it kind of makes me sick. Sure, taking away the freedom to earn a living settling trades in cash is only hurting “the rich”. So who cares, right? I care. I wouldn’t mess with your livelihood, why would you mess with mine?
[It's all irrelevant no of course because I live in South America and am free to move money any way I choose 24/7.]
Shouldn’t you be about EXPANDING rights, not taking them away?
This little rant probably surprises folks here who think I’m a “liberal” even though I’ve told them over and over again that I’m not.
My views on economics and finance are far “right” of anything Bush or McCain can come up with and my views on everything else are far left of anything the Democratic Party can come up with.
I’ve read some things I thought were foolish on this site before but this “oil speculator” thing is the WORST idea I’ve read here. It shames me that it comes from someone who belongs to my former party.
I don’t know what you do for a living, Orrin, but think about if some joker suggested casually on a blog that they should stop you from doing your job for whatever reason. I’m glad that neither Obama, McCain, Barr nor McKinney share your view on oil trading.
49. eyewitness testimony prob&hellip | August 14th, 2008 at 4:23 am
eyewitness testimony problems
A great post, I learned a lot from it.
50. wholesale batteries&hellip | September 1st, 2008 at 5:03 am
wholesale batteries
This enables authors to keep track of who is linking to, or referring to their articles. Many blogs have stopped using trackbacks because
51. pirate ship wheels&hellip | October 6th, 2008 at 6:42 am
pirate ship wheels
It has since been implemented in most other blogging tools.. Many blogs have stopped using trackbacks because dealing with spam became