Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: U.S. Energy Policy

Expand Messages
  • jsbalkite
    The coal fired hover bike is John Stewart s futuristic parody of the proposed multi-billion clean coal initiative. I love the Daily Show. That s a rather
    Message 1 of 8 , May 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      The coal fired hover bike is John Stewart's futuristic parody of the
      proposed multi-billion clean coal initiative. I love the Daily Show.
      That's a rather roundabout way of not answering my question, J.

      --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Joseph <joseph@d...> wrote:
      > Outrage, yes, flames, no.
      >
      > I really liked the coal fired hover bike, to what do I refer?
      >
      > J
      >
      > On Sun, 1 May 2005, jsbalkite wrote:
      >
      > > Hi, I'm James - new to the group. I work for United Space
      Alliance
      > > (NASA contractor) and I promote Green Mountain Energy (pollution-
      free
      > > residential/commercial energy) on the side. If you're interested
      in
      > > learning more I'd be more than happy to assist. Disclaimer - I
      get a
      > > commission for people that switch (free for you) to our pollution-
      > > free, renewable energy.
      > >
      > > I'm writing because I'm really disapointed with the President's
      > > energy policy. I'm even more depressed about the bill that passed
      the
      > > House which made Bush look like a tree-hugger.
      > >
      > > To get to my point, I'm looking for any good, factual (non-
      editorial)
      > > analyses of the proposed policies. I need to write an economic
      impact
      > > paper for this macroeconomic class and my professor is quite the
      free-
      > > market conservative who doesn't really care for
      environmentalists. So
      > > I need numbers.
      > >
      > > By the way, where's the outrage on this board regarding these
      > > policies catering to the status-quo, non-renewable energy
      production
      > > and practically ignoring conservation and our crack-like
      addiction to
      > > [foreign] oil?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
    • Joseph
      Well, if I had the numbers for you, I d tell you, but there are other members that may well deliver such. I was just responding to your comment why there
      Message 2 of 8 , May 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, if I had the numbers for you, I'd tell you, but there are other
        members that may well deliver such.

        I was just responding to your comment why there wasn't more outrage.

        The Daily Show keeps me sane in an otherwise totally insane world!

        Good luck getting those numbers you want. Side note: No matter how much
        convincing evidence I take to my hard headed friends, it just bounces off
        their thinking caps, or should I say dunce caps. Faith is reason proof!

        J

        On Sun, 1 May 2005, jsbalkite wrote:

        > The coal fired hover bike is John Stewart's futuristic parody of the
        > proposed multi-billion clean coal initiative. I love the Daily Show.
        > That's a rather roundabout way of not answering my question, J.
        >
        > --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Joseph <joseph@d...> wrote:
        > > Outrage, yes, flames, no.
        > >
        > > I really liked the coal fired hover bike, to what do I refer?
        > >
        > > J
        > >
        > > On Sun, 1 May 2005, jsbalkite wrote:
        > >
        > > > Hi, I'm James - new to the group. I work for United Space
        > Alliance
        > > > (NASA contractor) and I promote Green Mountain Energy (pollution-
        > free
        > > > residential/commercial energy) on the side. If you're interested
        > in
        > > > learning more I'd be more than happy to assist. Disclaimer - I
        > get a
        > > > commission for people that switch (free for you) to our pollution-
        > > > free, renewable energy.
        > > >
        > > > I'm writing because I'm really disapointed with the President's
        > > > energy policy. I'm even more depressed about the bill that passed
        > the
        > > > House which made Bush look like a tree-hugger.
        > > >
        > > > To get to my point, I'm looking for any good, factual (non-
        > editorial)
        > > > analyses of the proposed policies. I need to write an economic
        > impact
        > > > paper for this macroeconomic class and my professor is quite the
        > free-
        > > > market conservative who doesn't really care for
        > environmentalists. So
        > > > I need numbers.
        > > >
        > > > By the way, where's the outrage on this board regarding these
        > > > policies catering to the status-quo, non-renewable energy
        > production
        > > > and practically ignoring conservation and our crack-like
        > addiction to
        > > > [foreign] oil?
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • J P Malone
        Can anyone please refer me to where I might get list of financial incentives for Houston, Harris county, Texas and Federal for installation of energy
        Message 3 of 8 , May 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Can anyone please refer me to where I might get list of financial
          incentives for Houston, Harris county, Texas and Federal for
          installation of energy conservation items.

          I have see that Austin has a number of incentives, but have not been
          able to locate similar incentives from Houston, Harris County, State of
          Texas or Federal programs.

          >
        • Jim & Janet
          If you hire a qualified (and informed) installer/contractor to do the work (windows, insulation, hvac etc) your IOUs, Reliant, TXU et al must pay the
          Message 4 of 8 , May 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            If you hire a qualified (and informed) installer/contractor to do the work (windows, insulation, hvac etc) your IOUs, Reliant, TXU et al must pay the contractor a bonus for the installation. The end credit goes to the utility. Require them to share that discount with you.
            Jim Duncan
            Fort Worth
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 9:29 AM
            Subject: [hreg] Fiinanical Incentives for renewables & conservation

            Can anyone please refer me to where I might get list of financial
            incentives for Houston, Harris county, Texas and Federal for
            installation of energy conservation items.

            I have see that Austin has a number of incentives, but have not been
            able to locate similar incentives from Houston, Harris County, State of
            Texas or Federal programs.

            >
          • Roxanne Boyer
            The energy bill is dragging on because it has too much stuff in it. It needs to be broken into parts, but that s not the way our system works. I was told in
            Message 5 of 8 , May 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              The energy bill is dragging on because it has too much stuff in it.  It needs to be broken into parts, but that's not the way our system works.  I was told in High School Government class that the law making process was intentionally made slow and inefficient to prevent radical change - I see that.  Some of the major parts of the Bill that are in the limelight are:
               
              1)  Energy Production Tax Incentives - This means if you drill and produce oil on your land, you get a tax incentive - sort of like an agricultural incentive for farmers.  This is supposed to improves the economics for "marginal" wells - wells that may produce only a couple of barrels per day at a cost of ~$25/barrel.  It will put money into the hands of several mineral rights holding companies and domestic drilling companies, rather than into the hands of foreigners.  In my opinion, this part of the bill wastes our money trying to maintain a dying system.  It would be better to tax foreign oil and invest the money in the development of a new, sustainable energy infrastructure 
               
              2)  Renewable Fuels Subsidy - This part will pay some money for putting ethanol or biodiesel into fuels.  It is supposed to help Midwest corn farmers increase their market.  It may do some good in getting the biofuels infrastructure in place so that costs will drop and eventually the program will not need subsidizing.
               
              3)  Clean Coal Technology -  The US has more coal energy than it has oil or natural gas.  We could shift more of our energy usage to coal.  Coal is dirty and very polluting.  Technology exists that can clean up the coal exhaust, however, it is not economical.  So, like the renewable fuels subsidy, this part will also subsidize power produced from "clean" coal.  What this bill also does is allows polluting plants to continue to be built and operated.  Mercury from coal power plants has contaminated most Texas rivers and the gulf coast so that it is a health hazard to eat fish from the area.  The bill is a start, however, we need to stop polluting!
               
              4)  MTBE Producers Protection - The government mandated that MTBE be put into fuel (Clean Air Act).  Now it has been determined that MTBE can mix with groundwater and it tastes bad (no bad health effects have been discovered).  Lawyers want to get rich suing MTBE manufacturers - a repeat of the asbestos cases.  Companies that produced MTBE want protection from such lawyers.  In my opinion, the companies only did what the government told them to do; no one will get a dime except the lawyers; and it will only hurt American companies, resulting in job layoffs.  Companies who manufactured MTBE (which is just about every American oil and chemical company) should not be penalized for it.   Even more, MTBE did do a great deal to clean up our air and we will have to find something to replace it.
               
              5)  Permission to drill in national wilderness preserves - Oil has been found in some federal lands that prohibit drilling.  Why have preserves if we aren't going to preserve them?
               
              What the bill does not contain is a long term energy plan.  It is a short-term hold-out, sort of like taking out one loan to pay another.  We do need energy solutions.  I think individuals, communities and companies will find them long before the government can do anything about it.  HREG is a start.
               
              Regards,
              Chris
               
               

              jsbalkite <jsbalkite@...> wrote:
              Hi, I'm James - new to the group. I work for United Space Alliance
              (NASA contractor) and I promote Green Mountain Energy (pollution-free
              residential/commercial energy) on the side. If you're interested in
              learning more I'd be more than happy to assist. Disclaimer - I get a
              commission for people that switch (free for you) to our pollution-
              free, renewable energy.

              I'm writing because I'm really disapointed with the President's
              energy policy. I'm even more depressed about the bill that passed the
              House which made Bush look like a tree-hugger.

              To get to my point, I'm looking for any good, factual (non-editorial)
              analyses of the proposed policies. I need to write an economic impact
              paper for this macroeconomic class and my professor is quite the free-
              market conservative who doesn't really care for environmentalists. So
              I need numbers.

              By the way, where's the outrage on this board regarding these
              policies catering to the status-quo, non-renewable energy production
              and practically ignoring conservation and our crack-like addiction to
              [foreign] oil?



            • jsbalkite
              Thanks, Chris. Here s the link to the House version: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/energy_pdfs_2.htm Raise the CAFE standards! Or not:
              Message 6 of 8 , May 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks, Chris. Here's the link to the House version:

                http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/energy_pdfs_2.htm

                Raise the CAFE standards! Or not:
                http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/house_energy_co.html



                --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Boyer <chris.rox@s...> wrote:
                > The energy bill is dragging on because it has too much stuff in
                it. It needs to be broken into parts, but that's not the way our
                system works. I was told in High School Government class that the
                law making process was intentionally made slow and inefficient to
                prevent radical change - I see that. Some of the major parts of the
                Bill that are in the limelight are:
                >
                > 1) Energy Production Tax Incentives - This means if you drill and
                produce oil on your land, you get a tax incentive - sort of like an
                agricultural incentive for farmers. This is supposed to improves the
                economics for "marginal" wells - wells that may produce only a couple
                of barrels per day at a cost of ~$25/barrel. It will put money into
                the hands of several mineral rights holding companies and domestic
                drilling companies, rather than into the hands of foreigners. In my
                opinion, this part of the bill wastes our money trying to maintain a
                dying system. It would be better to tax foreign oil and invest the
                money in the development of a new, sustainable energy infrastructure
                >
                > 2) Renewable Fuels Subsidy - This part will pay some money for
                putting ethanol or biodiesel into fuels. It is supposed to help
                Midwest corn farmers increase their market. It may do some good in
                getting the biofuels infrastructure in place so that costs will drop
                and eventually the program will not need subsidizing.
                >
                > 3) Clean Coal Technology - The US has more coal energy than it
                has oil or natural gas. We could shift more of our energy usage to
                coal. Coal is dirty and very polluting. Technology exists that can
                clean up the coal exhaust, however, it is not economical. So, like
                the renewable fuels subsidy, this part will also subsidize power
                produced from "clean" coal. What this bill also does is allows
                polluting plants to continue to be built and operated. Mercury from
                coal power plants has contaminated most Texas rivers and the gulf
                coast so that it is a health hazard to eat fish from the area. The
                bill is a start, however, we need to stop polluting!
                >
                > 4) MTBE Producers Protection - The government mandated that MTBE
                be put into fuel (Clean Air Act). Now it has been determined that
                MTBE can mix with groundwater and it tastes bad (no bad health
                effects have been discovered). Lawyers want to get rich suing MTBE
                manufacturers - a repeat of the asbestos cases. Companies that
                produced MTBE want protection from such lawyers. In my opinion, the
                companies only did what the government told them to do; no one will
                get a dime except the lawyers; and it will only hurt American
                companies, resulting in job layoffs. Companies who manufactured MTBE
                (which is just about every American oil and chemical company) should
                not be penalized for it. Even more, MTBE did do a great deal to
                clean up our air and we will have to find something to replace it.
                >
                > 5) Permission to drill in national wilderness preserves - Oil has
                been found in some federal lands that prohibit drilling. Why have
                preserves if we aren't going to preserve them?
                >
                > What the bill does not contain is a long term energy plan. It is a
                short-term hold-out, sort of like taking out one loan to pay
                another. We do need energy solutions. I think individuals,
                communities and companies will find them long before the government
                can do anything about it. HREG is a start.
                >
                > Regards,
                > Chris
                >
                >
                >
                > jsbalkite <jsbalkite@s...> wrote:
                > Hi, I'm James - new to the group. I work for United Space Alliance
                > (NASA contractor) and I promote Green Mountain Energy (pollution-
                free
                > residential/commercial energy) on the side. If you're interested in
                > learning more I'd be more than happy to assist. Disclaimer - I get
                a
                > commission for people that switch (free for you) to our pollution-
                > free, renewable energy.
                >
                > I'm writing because I'm really disapointed with the President's
                > energy policy. I'm even more depressed about the bill that passed
                the
                > House which made Bush look like a tree-hugger.
                >
                > To get to my point, I'm looking for any good, factual (non-
                editorial)
                > analyses of the proposed policies. I need to write an economic
                impact
                > paper for this macroeconomic class and my professor is quite the
                free-
                > market conservative who doesn't really care for environmentalists.
                So
                > I need numbers.
                >
                > By the way, where's the outrage on this board regarding these
                > policies catering to the status-quo, non-renewable energy
                production
                > and practically ignoring conservation and our crack-like addiction
                to
                > [foreign] oil?
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ---------------------------------
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hreg/
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > hreg-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                Service.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.