Oil prices and alternative energies

[Turbineguy]

From my reading, when oil hits somewhere around $66 per barrel, solar, wind, and nuclear energies become economically viable.

But obviously this price has to be sustained long enough to convince people that indeed those prices are here to stay. Nukes take a long time to build.

Looking back at the history of oil prices and the Bush administration there are some points. In 1999 oil was at $10 per barrel. This was obviously very cheap. When Bush was inaugurated in 2001 oil was at $30. Bush attacked Iraq and it went to $50. Now he wants to attack Iran and it's at $70.

I think that given increased demand since 1999 until now, oil should be priced at about $30.

However, to think that this otherwise incompetent administration is doing a bit of economic engineering to get the US off the oil habit is going a bit far. The increase in oil prices has done wonders for Iran and other producing nations. Iran is flush with money to pay for their nuclear research programs.

[Jayhawk Lib]

1. We are in a world market

for energy. There is no controlling of a market especially a world market. Not even Bush and his oil cronies. Sure there are temporary measures that might have a short term effect but in the long run would make things worse.

Trying to control a market is like trying to control a river. You can put up a dam but the river will just keep backing up until sooner or later the you will have to start releasing the water or just let the dam break.

When oil markets are high oil companies are going to make a ton of money. That is what they are in the business for. There are many companies around the world that are wanting to find and sell oil. They all want to sell as much as they can on the world market so it would be pretty hard for them to get together and fix the price. OPEC has tried that and it just does not work.

Excess profits taxes will accomplish absolutely nothing except make some people feel good that we are really sticking it to the oil companies. It will not provide health care for the masses. It will not encourage alternate sources for energy. It will not reduce our tax burden. It will not help the poor. The only thing that little bit of extra money will do is give congress more to spend on pork to buy votes from their district.

[depakid]

2. Windfall profits taxes sure will accomplish something!

Even if you don't buy into carrot & stick economic policy- you can earmark those taxes to into programs that ameliorate the damage that their industry has done (e.g. MTBE cleanup) or you can fund grants for specific permaculture or alternative energy projects.

[Jayhawk Lib]

3. MTBE was the governments idea.

You want the oil companies to clean up the governments screw up. It was not the oil companies idea to mandate MTBE usage.

http://www.epa.gov/mtbe/gas.htm

MTBE has been used in U.S. gasoline at low levels since 1979 to replace lead as an octane enhancer (helps prevent the engine from "knocking"). Since 1992, MTBE has been used at higher concentrations in some gasoline to fulfill the oxygenate requirements set by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. (A few cities, such as Denver, used oxygenates (MTBE) at higher concentrations during the wintertime in the late 1980's.)

I think we have had to much government intervention and you want more???

[depakid]

4. I think we need to solve problems

in whatever ways we can- and not worry about such memes as "government intervention."

The stuff's leaking out of tanks- it's fouling the water, and creating CERCLA liability for landowners- among other things. I'm more than fine with internalizing the costs of MTBE clean up right back onto the companies that are making the overall money.

It's both the logical- and the equitable thing to do.

[IrateCitizen]

5. DING DING DING!

I'm more than fine with internalizing the costs of MTBE clean up right back onto the companies that that are making the overall money.

I think we should act that way with pretty much EVERYTHING -- and make companies pay costs associated with the production, life cycle AND disposal of products and services. The companies would then, of course, pass those costs on to the consumer -- which would initally cause a howl. But then, perhaps we might all approach things from a more wise perspective of "first, do no harm," rather than, "let's bowl ahead and deal with how we screw everything up when it becomes a crisis and we're all long gone".

[depakid]

6. Agreed- and better yet

We need to create serious incentives to upcycle- not just recycle and many materials as practical. Close the loops, so to speak. Cradle to cradle.

Also, with respect to "do no harm," we'd be wise to adopt the precautionary principle in regulatory matters- just as Europe and Canada do in many instances.

Check out what San Fransisco's doing:

http://www.greenaction.org/cancer/alert061803.shtml

[Jayhawk Lib]

7. The companies will not pay it directly...

We the consumer will ultimately pay it through higher prices at the pumps. This was a government screw up demanding that MTBE be added to the gasoline.

[rfkrfk]

9. the oxygen mandate has been repealled

more info, if anyone askes

[Massacure]

8. Nuclear is competitive at any oil price.

Because it only competes with coal.