[Lore]

Mass transit incentives cut, yet big oil subsadies remain. It would lead one to think that there just might be a connection.

[bratticus]

I have a theory I call "demand is power". It is the idea that an oil consuming nation wields as much power as a producing one does. The leverage is that you can threaten with the message "we will become more efficient" or bribe with "we will promote consumption." This is one of the United States remaining mechanisms for maintaining any semblance of hegemony.

[FairMaiden]

Anyone see this?

http://blip.tv/lessig/republic-lost-4731141

It's a very great talk because he actually has a solution

[bratticus]

It's a very great talk because he actually has a solution

Is the solution still viable under present conditions?

At 22m 41s the slide says "Every Voter Produces $50 Federal Revenue". Now that unemployment is at record levels as attested to by the record number of food stamp recipients is the $50 figure still true?



Unemployment simultaneously reduces income tax revenue and sales tax revenue, what does that do to this solution?

[dorlomin]

Big Slash to the mass transportation incentives. What are they thinking?

We have a conservative led government that is committed to the biggest cuts in public spending since the 1920s.

Yet most of the big rail projects have been fully funded. They include a £16 billion new mainline raile tunnel system linking west and east London (Crossrail)

A £6 billion enhancement of the north south mainline rail links around London (Thameslink)

A new high speed intercity link with Birmingham and to extend to the nothern cities

And the Electrification of the Great Western to Swansea, so that one of the last major intercity links using diesel will be chaning to electric in about 6 years.

And here we are with two of the biggest oil companies in the world here in the UK (Shell and BP). A major oil producer and a car addicted country.

France and Germany also have right wing governments and yet are also spending on new mass transport infrastructure.

Its an American thing to be so anti public transport these days.

[bratticus]

And here we are with two of the biggest oil companies in the world here in the UK (Shell ...

Isn't the only reason that Shell has its registered office in the UK that the UK mandates having a registered office in order to do business there? Seems Shell is headquartered outside of the UK.

[Graeme]

It was quite heartening to learn that Roscoe Bartlett has once again presented the peak oil case to members of Congress. Members here should be aware that he has done so. Do you think that his message was understood?

Peak Oil - (House of Representatives - February 17, 2012)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, when I looked at the television this morning and at that little crawler across the top of one of our stations, I noticed that oil was $103 a barrel--$103 a barrel and we're in a recession. What's happening here?
So I've got a chart here that goes back a few years--in fact, it ends in, what, 2008. There we have oil at something less than $100 a barrel. But if you extended this chart out just a little bit, you would see that it had jumped up to $147 a barrel, and that's of course aided by the housing bubble collapse. The economy came tumbling down and the price of oil dropped down to something under about here, $140 a barrel. Now it has crept back up slowly, slowly, as supply was not able to keep up with demand, until we now have oil at $103 a barrel and we're in a recession.

This is an interesting chart because it was maybe predicting something that we were sure was going to happen at some time or other, but we weren't sure when it was going to happen, and that's a phenomenon called peak oil. Peak oil is that highest production that you can achieve for a country--it occurs in a country, it occurs in a region, it occurs in the world. That peak for us occurred in 1970.



We are the most innovative, creative society in the history of the world, and I can see America once again an exporting country, and it should be green technology. Much of what we're now importing from China and from other places in the world we created here, and then it migrated over there for production. That's why every 15 hours we have another billion-dollar increase in the trade deficit. I want that thing reversed, and I think we can reverse that by recognizing that we have a huge challenge--following the lead of our military and going to renewables as efficiently and as quickly as we can.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

energybulletin

[Cog]

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -- Upton Sinclair

The implications of peak oil are too frightening for those in political power to understand or talk about even if they do understand it.

[Plantagenet]

Roscoe Bartlett has once again presented the peak oil case to members of Congress. Members here should be aware that he has done so. Do you think that his message was understood?

Not by the dems or the White House. They are still blaming the high energy prices on big oil companies and evil speculators.

[radon]

Excellent speech, even though he is criticized in the comments for making some typo-type mistakes. Interesting map that he presented:



The map shows the areas of the countries in proportion to their oil reserves.

If you think about it, the areas of the countries should be equal to the areas under the Hubbert (bell) curve of each country. Compare Saudi Arabia and Russia - SA is about 4 times bigger than Russia. Both countries are now pumping at about 10m barrels per day. Assuming that both countries are at peak, this means that they are both at the top of their Hubbert curves.

Try to visualize this: if SA's and Russia's peaks coincide, then the only way for SA to have the area of their Hubbert curve 4 times as large as Russia's is to have a much "fatter" curve (much wider inflection points, in maths terms). This means that throughout the upside of the curve, i.e. throughout the past history SA must have consistently produced times more oil than Russia, and only at the top the production curves would have crossed. Do not think that this has been the case, Russia and the Soviet Union have mostly topped the oil production charts in the past.

SA claim that they have spare capacity to raise production instantly by as much as 25%. Assuming this is the case, the area of SA's bell curve would be greater by roughly 25%, as long as, again, their bell curve is not much "fatter". Meaning that SA have 25% more reserves than Russia, rather than 4 times (400%) as much.

A plausible explanation could be that SA has not reached peak and is still on the move over the curve's upside slope. But then at their peak they should be able to reach no less than 50% more than their current production (again, intuitively, trying to visualize the bell curves - strictly speaking, number crunching would be needed). How realistic?

Another possible explanation is that Hubbert's theory does not hold true.

[Ache]

I don't get this part ...

Now, as Hyman Rickover indicated, one day these two things, renewables and nuclear, are going to fill this whole circle. It is inevitable. It's not tomorrow, by the way, and we are not running out of oil. We have more oil to pump than all the oil that's been pumped in all the history of the world. What we're running out of is our ability to pump this oil as fast as we would like to use it.

He talks about countries peaking and sliding down the slope, still he says we are not running out of oil? So who is filling the gap ?

Then he goes about " one day ... renewable and nuclear, are going to fill this whole circle " then what is the problem ?

[Tanada]

I don't get this part ...

Now, as Hyman Rickover indicated, one day these two things, renewables and nuclear, are going to fill this whole circle. It is inevitable. It's not tomorrow, by the way, and we are not running out of oil. We have more oil to pump than all the oil that's been pumped in all the history of the world. What we're running out of is our ability to pump this oil as fast as we would like to use it.

He talks about countries peaking and sliding down the slope, still he says we are not running out of oil? So who is filling the gap ?

Then he goes about " one day ... renewable and nuclear, are going to fill this whole circle " then what is the problem ?

Peaking is first and foremost about supply constraint. The USA peaked in 1970 but still produces 60% of the same volume of oil today as we did in 1970. As for what is the problem, building those renewable and fission powerplants takes a lot of effort and we have not been making the effort to do so. That means we will have an energy gap until they are built, and the longer we wait to build the harder it will be and the longer it will take to get to a sustainable steady state.

[Ache]

I don't get this part ...

Now, as Hyman Rickover indicated, one day these two things, renewables and nuclear, are going to fill this whole circle. It is inevitable. It's not tomorrow, by the way, and we are not running out of oil. We have more oil to pump than all the oil that's been pumped in all the history of the world. What we're running out of is our ability to pump this oil as fast as we would like to use it.

He talks about countries peaking and sliding down the slope, still he says we are not running out of oil? So who is filling the gap ?

Then he goes about " one day ... renewable and nuclear, are going to fill this whole circle " then what is the problem ?

Peaking is first and foremost about supply constraint. The USA peaked in 1970 but still produces 60% of the same volume of oil today as we did in 1970. As for what is the problem, building those renewable and fission powerplants takes a lot of effort and we have not been making the effort to do so. That means we will have an energy gap until they are built, and the longer we wait to build the harder it will be and the longer it will take to get to a sustainable steady state.

I always thought that in the shot term we have a severe liquid fuels problem. How are we gonna make the world to move with the energy density of nuclear and renewable?

And about supply constraint he makes it look like we are not going down the road anytime soon, just flatten the global production curve.

[dinopello]

Roscoe has his Democratic opponent set now

A wealthy newcomer defeated the Democratic establishment’s pick for a redistricted House seat in the Washington suburbs Tuesday, the biggest victory in Maryland’s primaries.
...
Delaney’s win was a repudiation of the party leaders and traditional Democratic interest groups that threw their weight behind Garagiola.

Roscoe is 86 so even if he wins most likely it will be his last go round. Republicans tried to primary him but he prevailed and many thought he wasn't going to run again anyway.

When he goes, he will be missed as one of the intelligent and sane voices on energy and other technical issues. Despite belonging to a conservative doctrine religion (Seventh Day Adventist) he actually believes in science ! That church is yet another one of those christian offshoots from the 19th century, founded in upstate New York.

[Graeme]

HOUSE DEMS MOVE TO END OIL SUBSIDIES, PROTECT CLEAN ENERGY JOBS, AS FOUR OIL MAJORS REPORT 3-MONTH PROFITS OF $26 BILLION

The following information was released by the office of Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey:

Several top House Democrats today introduced legislation that would end subsidies given to the largest oil companies, and instead extend incentives for onshore and offshore wind and other renewable energy production, electric vehicle and clean energy manufacturing, energy efficient appliances and homes, and a new era of natural gas-powered vehicles. The bill represents the energy priorities that Americans have been calling for, namely an end to help for highly-profitable oil companies that need no assistance, and the production of American-made clean energy technologies that will cut our dependence on oil and create a new generation of American jobs.

The bill comes as ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips have reported combined profits of more than $26 billion in just the first three months of 2012.
The bill, the IMPACT Act (Investing to Modernize the Production of American Clean Energy and Technology), was introduced today by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), John Larson (D-Conn.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), and Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-N.J.).

By cutting major loopholes for oil companies, even after extending vital clean energy and natural gas and fuel cell programs, the bill would still reduce the federal deficit by more than $11 billion over 10 years.

A summary of the bill is below, and a summary fact sheet is available HERE. Full text of the legislation is available HERE.

-- Extends for 8 years the Production Tax Credit for wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, hydropower, and marine and hydrokinetic power production. The wind industry alone has said that 37,000 jobs will be lost next year without this extension.

--Extends for 2 years the 1603 Renewable Energy Grant Program. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates this expired program that began under the Recovery Act has created more than 75,000 direct jobs.

--Supports the construction of the first 3,000 megawatts of U.S. offshore wind facilities

--Gives new tax credits for the construction of new and modified American facilities for manufacturing clean energy technologies.

--Increases incentives to purchase all-electric cars to reduce oil use and pollution.

--Extends expired tax credits for 50 percent greater energy efficient homes for the manufacture of high-efficiency appliances

--Pushes for the development of more fuel pumps serving electric, natural gas, and fuel cell vehicles.

-- Extends expired tax credits for natural gas trucks that can use American fuel to deliver goods to Americans.

--The bill ends $44.8 billion in subsidies for the largest oil companies by eliminating six tax breaks.

utilityproducts

[Tanada]

Four Senate sub committees have cleared four more of President Trump's Cabinet picks to go before the Senate for confirmation votes. Other than the usual political grandstanding and some really stupid questions things have proceeded fairly smoothly. Grandstanding and stupid question happen every time you get a televised hearing which makes me wonder how dumb these people are in closed hearings where they lack an audience.

A slew of Donald Trump's picks won approval by the Senate committees overseeing their official nominations, suggesting that they will face little resistance to approval by the full Senate.

The endorsement by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, by a voice vote shown on its website, cleared the way for a full Senate vote on Ben Carson's appointment as secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Carson, 65, had promised senators on the committee during a confirmation hearing that he would monitor any potential conflicts of interest between his agency and properties controlled by real estate mogul Trump.

He also told lawmakers during a hearing on Jan. 12 that he was fit to lead HUD, an agency that offers housing to the poor, even though he has sometimes criticized its work.

Members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee also voiced no objections to the nominations of billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, 79, as commerce secretary and veteran government administrator Elaine Chao, 63, as transportation secretary.

Republicans control the Commerce committee by a single vote.

The single voice vote for the two nominees marked a stark contrast from Monday's 11-10 vote by the Senate Foreign Relations committee to advance the nomination of former Exxon Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state. All Democrats on that panel voted against Tillerson.

On Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to be Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, clearing the way for what is expected to be an easy confirmation in the full Senate.

Ross, a corporate turnaround expert who made his fortune investing in distressed steel, textile, auto parts companies and banks, is expected to take a lead role in shaping Trump's trade policies. These are aimed at protecting U.S. manufacturers from imports, renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and pursuing bilateral trade deals after Trump signed an order on Monday to cancel the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Chao would play a key role in Trump's plan to significantly raise government spending on U.S. infrastructure, including roads and bridges, an initiative that has strong support from Democrats and many Republicans.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/us-senat ... haley.html

[Tanada]

Okay folks there is a 90% plus chance Nancy Pelosi will be the new speaker come January 2019, what do you think will come of this change?

[Cog]

Let's not forget the 40 never trumping Republicans who retired instead of running for reelection. Good riddance. You are with Trump or you are history.

[Cog]

Okay folks there is a 90% plus chance Nancy Pelosi will be the new speaker come January 2019, what do you think will come of this change?

Full blown resist, investigate, and attempt to impeach. That is the message they ran on.

[KaiserJeep]

I wasn't done talking about the election, but the other thread is closed. Trump is perfectly capable of deciding he will run as a Democrat in the 2020 elections. It is after all a much closer match to his Liberal NYC roots. If he decides to take the Democrat ticket, there is nothing much the media, the titular leaders of the DNC, or anybody else could do about it. Remember when NOBODY believed he was a viable Republican candidate? Being a Democrat is less of a stretch, by a considerable margin.