Comments on: Another Economy Might be Beginning Escape From Fossil Energy Dependence

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:23:00 +0000

Completely agree. It’s a shame the U.S. is willing to go down to #3 or further without even attempting to compete.

By: sanctuary765

sanctuary765 — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:32:00 +0000

The Republicans have cut the EPA to the bone and fought them tooth and nail. We need someone on the side of humanity and life..If a Tax does this, even a little, then why not..They can’t make people pay for all of it, they have to change..or we die..It’s that simple. Any thing that pushes corrupted officials to move ahead, and move away from filthy oil, is fine w/me.

By: sanctuary765

sanctuary765 — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:26:00 +0000

The US should not allow, or participate in the sand oil project, it’s filthy and we don’t need it. The oil companies have stock piles and the price isn’t going down. It’s just another way to ruin our environment.Perhaps you’re a Fox news listener? Neither China, or the US should touch the Sand oil project…and if China does..we all have the same air! It’s not as if there is a magic curtain to protect any of us from this filthy oil ruining the planet. Regardless, the US should not do it..China doing it, is no reason for us to either.

By: sanctuary765

sanctuary765 — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:20:00 +0000

I remember when we used to be ‘first”.Now China and the EU are ahead f us, and the US is trying to prevent the EU from insisting our planes be cleaner or pay a fee..I think they should pay up..if they refuse to comply..and why not clean up the air? People need jobs, why not make then this way?

By: Uncle B

Uncle B — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:58:08 +0000

Canadian Assholes! Install a huge nuclear reactor, use Saskatchewan’s uranium, extract the oil, all of it with nuclear fuel, sell all of it to the hungry U.S. and laugh all the way to the bank! Canada has uranium coming out its nostrils and other orifices, and no market for it! Why not make the Saudi sized Oil Sands pay off big time and use Nuclear -Electric power to cleanly extract every drop of oil wasting none in processing, and sell it while we still have a market. The U.S. will go electric soon due to lack of other resources there, We can stop-gap that long enough to make Canada even richer! Build immense reactors, make heat, clean up the oil sands, and walk away with a cleaner environment! May be the huge sale of oil-sands to China will provoke such massive, sensible, eco-friendly, investment in Canada? Will Yankee Doodle allow this? He stopped the Avro Arrow cold by tweaking Diefenbaker’s asshole! and he was a conservative sell out artist just like Harper the traitor is, and the conservatives are in power for long as the proroguing of parliament lasts – not long now, you slimy sell-out bastards! Maybe an NDP government will show the way for Canada, and make the Yanks quiver in their Corporatist boots.

By: Uncle B

Uncle B — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:58:00 +0000

By: JJ

JJ — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:59:53 +0000

On cap n trade, I remain highly dubious and side with Hanson and funnily enough the oil companies (ouch). It seems to be little more than a shell game that allows the current situation to continue. Better still call it like the Catholic church taking money for indulgences.

The article link doesn’t really change my mind either. I think physicists and engineers have a low opinion of economics and politics so having economists steer the ship when actually nature and physics are really driving, gives me the creeps. I just don’t think economists feel the same urgency about the situation.

Given that, and that Europe has had cap n trade working there for some time, we will see what it achieves here too.

By: JJ

JJ — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:59:00 +0000

Given that, and that Europe has had cap n trade working there for some time, we will see what it achieves here too.

By: JJ

JJ — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:16:19 +0000

If you are referring to those water2gas schemes that use hydrolyzes that suck power from the alternator or battery to split water, then it is probably a good thing they are not permitted. Those are bogus devices that cannot improve ICE efficiency without stealing the energy from the battery. These have been debunked in lots of places. If you use one, the hydrogen might look like its improving mileage for a while, until the battery is drained, then it has to be charged up by the alternator and quickly demands more power from the engine than it ever gave in the hydrogen split. Its simple laws of thermodynamics.

By: JJ

JJ — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:16:00 +0000

By: Charles Vismeg

Charles Vismeg — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:03:48 +0000

J; alternate methods to combust in current engine designs will require other technical alterations in the power train system, likely including the current O2 sensor’s viability.

Cap & Trade is an interesting concept as has built in incentive for switching to renewable energy sources, although it remains to be seen how this concept pans out in the US. I think it’s worth trying.

By: Charles Vismeg

Charles Vismeg — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 05:03:00 +0000

J; alternate methods to combust in current engine designs will require other technical alterations in the power train system, likely including the current O2 sensor’s viability.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:50:00 +0000

I am. A regular carbon tax does not place any limit or cap on total world or national emissions, a cap and trade plan does.

Krugman has a good explanation:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/unhelpful-hansen/

Look at how effectively the EPA has wrestled down SOX and NOX with Cap and Trade:

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/12/cap-trade-cut-emissions-50-in-20-years/

By: J

Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:46:21 +0000

I also do not agree with cap and trade. It is a negative concept.

I would rather see an concerted government/industry/public effort to remove barriers and incentivize energy efficiency in a positive way.

One example: many fuel efficient after market devices such as hydrogen generators can not be legally used on a gasoline vehicle because to make them work properly would involve disabling the oxygen sensor unit. A $250,000 fine by the EPA

Your cap and trade government in action!

By: J

Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:46:00 +0000

I also do not agree with cap and trade. It is a negative concept.

I would rather see an concerted government/industry/public effort to remove barriers and incentivize energy efficiency in a positive way.

Your cap and trade government in action!

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:08:00 +0000

Also – “In general, Syncrude has been focusing on improving energy efficiency and had succeeded in increasing efficency per barrel extracted by 17 per cent over the last 2 years.

This has resulted in $100 million in savings.

Improving efficiencies in developing new tech in mechanical energy instead of thermal energy.

Syncrude has also developed “low-energy extraction” which cuts the temperature required to separate bitumen from 80C to 40C.”

By: Willravel

Willravel — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:38:49 +0000

I want gas to be heavily taxed, but I’m still not convinced Cap and Trade is the best method to go about doing this.

By: Willravel

Willravel — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:38:00 +0000

I want gas to be heavily taxed, but I’m still not convinced Cap and Trade is the best method to go about doing this.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:50:30 +0000

I am. A regular carbon tax does not place any limit or cap on total world or national emissions, a cap and trade plan does.

Krugman has a good explanation:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/unhelpful-hansen/

Look at how effectively the EPA has wrestled down SOX and NOX with Cap and Trade:

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/12/cap-trade-cut-emissions-50-in-20-years/

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:08:42 +0000

Also – “In general, Syncrude has been focusing on improving energy efficiency and had succeeded in increasing efficency per barrel extracted by 17 per cent over the last 2 years.

This has resulted in $100 million in savings.

Improving efficiencies in developing new tech in mechanical energy instead of thermal energy.

Syncrude has also developed “low-energy extraction” which cuts the temperature required to separate bitumen from 80C to 40C.”