|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:20 am Post subject: Leading America Toward Energy Independence |
 |
|
| Quote: |
July 26, 2007
Leading America Toward Energy Independence
By Rudy Giuliani
America needs to become energy independent.
We should have started to move toward energy independence back in the 1970s, when oil prices spiked and there were the long lines at gas stations. Presidents Nixon and Carter talked about energy independence, but not a lot got done. The next President of the United States is going to have to make it a major goal of their administration. Most people will say it's impossible, we've tried before. I'm running for president because I know how to get things done.
I will move America toward energy independence. It will require setting goals, sticking to them and energizing the American people to achieve them. It will require expanding our reliance on a much more diverse range of energy sources that America can control.
Ethanol and other bio-fuels are already helping America move toward energy independence. But it is embarrassing that Brazil is so far ahead of America in the use of ethanol. It should be other way around. Seventy percent of the new cars sold in Brazil can use ethanol. In the United States there's only a very small percentage. In Brazil you can pull up to most gas stations and get ethanol. That's not the case in the United States. Our goal has to be more growth in ethanol. Because every percentage that we increase our use of ethanol, we reduce our reliance on foreign oil from volatile areas of the world.
Just like Brazil is ahead of us in ethanol, France is ahead of us in nuclear power. Eighty percent of the electricity in France comes from nuclear power. Only twenty percent of electricity in America is generated by nuclear power and it's going to go down to fifteen percent in the future if we don't do something about it. We invented the peaceful use of nuclear power, but we've let other countries get ahead of us. There is no reason for that. No one's ever died from nuclear power in the United States. Despite that fact, we haven't licensed a new nuclear power plant in the United States in 30 years.
America has more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil. If we can compete and make cost effective the process of carbon sequestration, clean coal, we can rely on coal to a much larger extent. And we can rely on it without harming the environment.
We also must increase our use of solar power, wind power and hydro-power. We can reduce energy costs and reduce pollution through conservation. And if we can figure out how to change our electrical grid to a digital grid we'll be able to use our energy on a much more efficient and consistent basis.
The government needs to help business establish competitive, cost-effective technologies in the short-run. That doesn't necessarily mean larger subsidies. But it does require government helping those developing industries and technologies. In the case of increasing the number of oil refineries and nuclear power plants, it means breaking down some of the bureaucratic burdens.
In the long-run, energy independence can become a great industry for America. We can sell our advances to countries like China and India. They need energy independence even more than we do and they are further behind us in this effort. If we approach this challenge from a position of our strengths, not our weaknesses, we can find new opportunities and create new jobs right here in America.
The government has to approach energy independence the way we put a man on the moon. When the Soviets put a man in space, President Eisenhower was embarrassed and angry. President Eisenhower said we're going to get to the moon first and he started the space program. President Kennedy took it over and expanded it. President Johnson continued the job and President Nixon got it done. That's two Republican presidents and two Democratic presidents - not thinking about partisan interests, but thinking about the national interest. That is the way America achieves great goals.
The bottom line is that there is no one answer: Ethanol and bio-fuels can't do it all, conservation can't do it all, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, hybrid vehicles - none of these are silver bullet solutions. But if we increase our use of each one of them to a higher level, we can achieve energy independence in the future while creating a new engine for the American economy.
Rudy Giuliani is the former Mayor of New York City and a Republican candidate for President.
� 2000-2007 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/leading_america_toward_energy.html at July 26, 2007 - 09:31:02 AM CDT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leavingkorea
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The capital and infrastructure investment at this time is too high for that to realistically happen. Doesn't mean you should try and efforts should not be made, but it requires a massive change in U.S. culture, spending, policies... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Though biofuels are often seen as a stage in weaning the economy off of oil, the negative impacts of their increased use and consumption, is sometimes overlooked with all the hype that surrounds them....
How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor
| Quote: |
The push for ethanol and other biofuels has spawned an industry that depends on billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, and not only in the United States. In 2005, global ethanol production was 9.66 billion gallons, of which Brazil produced 45.2 percent (from sugar cane) and the United States 44.5 percent (from corn). Global production of biodiesel (most of it in Europe), made from oilseeds, was almost one billion gallons.
The industry's growth has meant that a larger and larger share of corn production is being used to feed the huge mills that produce ethanol. According to some estimates, ethanol plants will burn up to half of U.S. domestic corn supplies within a few years. Ethanol demand will bring 2007 inventories of corn to their lowest levels since 1995 (a drought year), even though 2006 yielded the third-largest corn crop on record. Iowa may soon become a net corn importer.
The enormous volume of corn required by the ethanol industry is sending shock waves through the food system. (The United States accounts for some 40 percent of the world's total corn production and over half of all corn exports.) In March 2007, corn futures rose to over $4.38 a bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those grains are increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops.
This might sound like nirvana to corn producers, but it is hardly that for consumers, especially in poor developing countries, who will be hit with a double shock if both food prices and oil prices stay high. The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year. By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world. Biofuels have tied oil and food prices together in ways that could profoundly upset the relationships between food producers, consumers, and nations in the years ahead, with potentially devastating implications for both global poverty and food security.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Use sugar . Bio fuels are not the total answer , but they could be part of the answer.
Also giving money to the enemy is not exactly smart policy wouldn't you agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leavingkorea wrote: |
| The capital and infrastructure investment at this time is too high for that to realistically happen. Doesn't mean you should try and efforts should not be made, but it requires a massive change in U.S. culture, spending, policies... |
The US ought increase gasoline taxes and tax imported oil to pay for infrastructure change.
If the US really chooses to win then it will win. All that is needed is for the US to decide to .
During World War II Americans made big sacrifices to win , taxing oil isn't much of a sacrifice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leavingkorea
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| During World War II Americans made big sacrifices to win , taxing oil isn't much of a sacrifice. |
Different people today. Today most Westerners are spoiled and have a sense of entitlement. Might be easier said then done. Since the late 50's motivation to win and a willingness to make the needed sacrifices to reach goals has been declining.
To me, we will not stop using oil regardless of how things go. Greater use of nukes, solar and thermal are the keys to me. We can literally turn every house into an energy producer with solar and thermal. It requires a $250,000 per house but it can be done. Maybe in 20 years prices will be more bearable.
Electric cars are so impractical (all you Hollywood tree hugging idiots!!!) because the electricity drain would devastate the U.S. energy grid. It can't keep up now. And since most electricity is made from burning coal, oil and gas those electric cars are not as clean as people think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Different people today. Today most Westerners are spoiled and have a sense of entitlement. Might be easier said then done. Since the late 50's motivation to win and a willingness to make the needed sacrifices to reach goals has been declining. |
that has got to be fixed.
the US ought to run up the national debt to pay for alternative energy . It is worth it.
better to be at the mercy of debt than at the mercy of your enemies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bignate wrote: |
Though biofuels are often seen as a stage in weaning the economy off of oil, the negative impacts of their increased use and consumption, is sometimes overlooked with all the hype that surrounds them....
How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor
| Quote: |
The push for ethanol and other biofuels has spawned an industry that depends on billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, and not only in the United States. In 2005, global ethanol production was 9.66 billion gallons, of which Brazil produced 45.2 percent (from sugar cane) and the United States 44.5 percent (from corn). Global production of biodiesel (most of it in Europe), made from oilseeds, was almost one billion gallons.
The industry's growth has meant that a larger and larger share of corn production is being used to feed the huge mills that produce ethanol. According to some estimates, ethanol plants will burn up to half of U.S. domestic corn supplies within a few years. Ethanol demand will bring 2007 inventories of corn to their lowest levels since 1995 (a drought year), even though 2006 yielded the third-largest corn crop on record. Iowa may soon become a net corn importer.
The enormous volume of corn required by the ethanol industry is sending shock waves through the food system. (The United States accounts for some 40 percent of the world's total corn production and over half of all corn exports.) In March 2007, corn futures rose to over $4.38 a bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those grains are increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops.
This might sound like nirvana to corn producers, but it is hardly that for consumers, especially in poor developing countries, who will be hit with a double shock if both food prices and oil prices stay high. The World Bank has estimated that in 2001, 2.7 billion people in the world were living on the equivalent of less than $2 a day; to them, even marginal increases in the cost of staple grains could be devastating. Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 450 pounds of corn -- which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year. By putting pressure on global supplies of edible crops, the surge in ethanol production will translate into higher prices for both processed and staple foods around the world. Biofuels have tied oil and food prices together in ways that could profoundly upset the relationships between food producers, consumers, and nations in the years ahead, with potentially devastating implications for both global poverty and food security.
|
|
Yes, there are certainly not 6 degrees of separation between agri-biz and the oil industry. The farm subsidy debate was getting interesting here in the States recently, but things have gone quiet on it in Washington. I suspect some lobbyists have been busy calling in their favors.
I am not in favor of the ethanol solution, or the nuclear one.
But I will give Brazil credit- the biofuel solution has sure helped them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
The current situation giving money to our enemies is about as bad as it gets.
better to go with both bio fuels and nuclear power. But it ought not stop there. Also invest in turning coal to oil , wind power and what what ever else is out there.
.Higher gas taxes and taxing imported oil are other things that needs to be done.
Not giving money to the enemy is job one and just about all the other concerns ought to take a back seat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leavingkorea
Joined: 27 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Not giving money to the enemy is job one and just about all the other concerns ought to take a back seat. |
That way of thinking along with stability are a major reason why Canada will soon be the largest supplier of oil to the U.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The current situation giving money to our enemies is about as bad as it gets.
better to go with both bio fuels and nuclear power. But it ought not stop there. Also invest in turning coal to oil , wind power and what what ever else is out there.
.Higher gas taxes and taxing imported oil are other things that needs to be done.
Not giving money to the enemy is job one and just about all the other concerns ought to take a back seat. |
Are we talking about Texaco and Halliburton? Sorry, the war was started for clearly ulterior motives, and they seem to be benefiting greatly. I would be re-thinking who the enemy is.
And letting the same foxes take control of the "alternatives" such as biofuels and nuclear energy is opening the doors to the hen house.
Real alternative energy will be that which the user controls, either individually or by small community. The corporate solution is just a continuation of the deadly business as usual.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
World's biggest solar power plant is coming to the States, with the assistance of our ally Israel.
Kind of cool how Israeli technology might make us less dependent on Arab oil. Perfect.
PG&E to buy electricity from massive solar park in Mojave Desert
The Associated Press
Published: July 25, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. announced plans to buy enough electricity to power 400,000 homes from a masssive solar park covering up to nine square miles (23 square kilometers) in California's Mojave Desert.
The San Francisco-based utility signed a 25-year contract with Solel Solar Systems, based in Beit Shemesh, Israel, to purchase 553 megawatts of electricity � equivalent to the amount generated by a large coal-fired power plant. Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.
The Mojave Solar Park, estimated to cost $2 billion (�1.46 billion), would dwarf the largest solar plants operating today, which generate less than 100 megawatts of electricity.
Solel, which would build and operate the park, still needs approval from California's Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission and other state and local agencies. But Solel and PG&E officials said they were confident state regulators would support the project because it would help California reach its clean-energy goals.
"Preliminary research suggests the environmental impact will be minimal," Keely Wachs, a spokesman for PG&E, said Wednesday. The utility supplies electricity to 5.1 million customers in northern and central California.
Today in Business
EU case against Intel resembles Microsoft saga
Stock markets rise and fall according to a new world pecking order
The anatomy of Sal. Oppenheim's shift to Luxembourg
Company officials hope to begin building the park in 2009 and begin generating carbon-free electricity in 2011. Three sites are being considered for the project, which would cover up to 6,000 acres (2,428 hectares) and use transmission lines formerly used by a now-defunct coal plant near Laughlin, Nevada.
The contract filed with the PUC Wednesday would help PG&E comply with a state law that requires electric utilities to secure at least 20 percent of their electricity supplies from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar by 2010.
The plant would employ solar-thermal technology that would use 1.2 million mirrors to harness the desert sun's power. Rows of trough-like mirrors would heat fluid that generates steam, powering turbines that produce electricity that would be fed into PG&E's electric grid.
Currently, most solar power projects use photovoltaic technology in which electricity is generated onsite from rooftop panels on homes, businesses and public buildings. California is pushing photovoltaics with its "Million Solar Roofs" initiative that offers $3 billion (�2.18 billion) in rebates to install solar panels.
Solar-thermal is less expensive and easier to build at a large-scale than photovoltaic technology, officials said.
"We see solar-thermal as one of the most promising sources of renewable energy," Wachs said.
Solel, one of the world's largest solar-thermal companies, is building similar projects in Israel and southern Spain. Nine plants using Solel technology currently generate 354 megawatts of electricity in the Mojave Desert.
"The sun is shining there at a very high intensity," making it one of the best locations for solar-thermal power, said Solel CEO Avi Brenmiller.
Two years ago, Southern California Edison signed a contract with Phoenix-based Stirling Energy Systems to secure 500 megawatts of electricity from a 4,500-acre (1,821-hectare) solar-thermal project in the California Desert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
the US ought to run up the national debt to pay for alternative energy . It is worth it.
|
Don't forget rods from god. The defense budget is the biggest pork barrel that might be partially diverted to such endeavours.
Were you to choose one, Joo, which would you go for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Are we talking about Texaco and Halliburton? Sorry, the war was started for clearly ulterior motives, and they seem to be benefiting greatly. I would be re-thinking who the enemy is. |
Yes the war was strated for ulterior motives but not to steal Iraq's oil.
| Quote: |
| And letting the same foxes take control of the "alternatives" such as biofuels and nuclear energy is opening the doors to the hen house. |
You really think that GE and all Archer Daniels Midland and all the alternative energy companies on the Nasdaq not to mention the auto industry would allow the interests of Texaco or Haliburton to come before theirs?
| Quote: |
| Real alternative energy will be that which the user controls, either individually or by small community. The corporate solution is just a continuation of the deadly business as usual. |
There is lots of money to be made in alternative energy , big corperate model And the small community model both have a role to play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 12:54 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
the US ought to run up the national debt to pay for alternative energy . It is worth it.
|
Don't forget rods from god. The defense budget is the biggest pork barrel that might be partially diverted to such endeavours.
Were you to choose one, Joo, which would you go for? |
Alternative energy would come first but I think both are needed.
Alternative energy would come first but if the US had both think of all the pressure the US could put on Iran and North Korea too.
They use ought to be interested in winning.
The defense budget is what keeps the US safe. The enemies of the US would love to get in an attack on the US if they could.
And did you know you can check this that South Korea spends 3x -4x what North Korea spends on its military , yet South Korea is not more powerful. Why is that? The point is that it is not just the amount spent that counts, but how much is spent taking care of soldiers and economics of scale.
Futhermore most of the enemies of the US in reality spend 2- 3x more on their militaries than they declare.
Anyway Nowhereman would you support a tax on imported oil and an increase in the gas tax to pay for alternative energy research? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
