$10 a barrel- driverless cars

[Grumps 3,704]

As far as green energy, do you realize that you could pump out the exhaust of coal plants into algae that will take out the CO2 and produce bio diesel? But we have a coalition of people not looking at it because the current admin doesn't like coal...which coal is an abundant fuel source here in the US and is being used in other countries without monitoring or care for pollution....

We need sensible solutions and not just taxing and hoping that things will work out because we artificially inflated prices just to make people chose an alternative...what does that do to the poor? It makes them have less money.

What you suggest has amplifying effects on the populace that you will then say we have to fix down the road. Why? Because we don't have an energy plan that we can all get behind and move forward. I would like to have cheap energy, better batteries, alternate fuel sources to heat and cool my house, run my car etc but until the conditions are good for a technology breakout, I would like to continue with what I am doing without the massive tax that you are proposing along with this administration....

I don't think there is any technology planned that is capable of negating the carbon contribution of coal on the scale required.

Taxing carbon is a sensible approach to facilitate the transition away from it. Again, simply waiting until the next energy technology naturally replaces carbon is not viable due to the time required and the amount of CO2 produced in the interim.

The "amplifying" effects on the populace by taxing carbon is far less than the "amplifying" effects of runaway global warming. I don't understand what you mean by our lacking an energy plan we can all get behind. Isn't such a plan the exact sort of prescription approach that you all are against - i.e.: the government "picking winners"?

Making carbon more expensive doesn't involve picking the replacement. It allows the market and the competition between emerging technologies determine the winner.

Again, simply letting things naturally proceed will never create the conditions for a new technology breakout, at least in the time we have to make a change. Nothing will be cheaper that what we are already doing until carbon becomes more expensive due to scarcity. We cannot wait that long.

So why doesn't the government just ban the use of oil completely? Burning it is destroying the planet, isn't it? If we cannot burn oil then we will greatly accelerate the transition to some other fuel source. Hey, I think I am getting the hang of this "being a liberal" thing!

[homersapien 11,373]

This proposal is just another of how liberalism works. You can't be trusted to make the correct decision on your own. The free market can't be trusted. Government, run by then, must step 8n and make that decision for you. They know best.

Actually, in this case, taxing carbon creates the conditions for transition based on market competition.

Regardless, there are some things a market will not do. Transitioning from relatively cheap (excluding external costs) carbon-based fuels to alternatives is one of them. Everyone keeps saying this will happen on it's own - presumably meaning the market will act on its own - but no one has volunteered a reason why the market should want to do that.

And it also seems to me that everyone is overlooking the fundamental reason why this needs to be done as quickly as possible - to reduce the pace of AGW. This is the most indirect, unobtrusive way for the government to hasten the transition.

Neither the public sector nor the market can do much to hasten this transition outside of government, but they will be the ones who invent and create the replacement technologies.

[homersapien 11,373]

As far as green energy, do you realize that you could pump out the exhaust of coal plants into algae that will take out the CO2 and produce bio diesel? But we have a coalition of people not looking at it because the current admin doesn't like coal...which coal is an abundant fuel source here in the US and is being used in other countries without monitoring or care for pollution....

We need sensible solutions and not just taxing and hoping that things will work out because we artificially inflated prices just to make people chose an alternative...what does that do to the poor? It makes them have less money.

What you suggest has amplifying effects on the populace that you will then say we have to fix down the road. Why? Because we don't have an energy plan that we can all get behind and move forward. I would like to have cheap energy, better batteries, alternate fuel sources to heat and cool my house, run my car etc but until the conditions are good for a technology breakout, I would like to continue with what I am doing without the massive tax that you are proposing along with this administration....

I don't think there is any technology planned that is capable of negating the carbon contribution of coal on the scale required.

Taxing carbon is a sensible approach to facilitate the transition away from it. Again, simply waiting until the next energy technology naturally replaces carbon is not viable due to the time required and the amount of CO2 produced in the interim.

The "amplifying" effects on the populace by taxing carbon is far less than the "amplifying" effects of runaway global warming. I don't understand what you mean by our lacking an energy plan we can all get behind. Isn't such a plan the exact sort of prescription approach that you all are against - i.e.: the government "picking winners"?

Making carbon more expensive doesn't involve picking the replacement. It allows the market and the competition between emerging technologies determine the winner.

Again, simply letting things naturally proceed will never create the conditions for a new technology breakout, at least in the time we have to make a change. Nothing will be cheaper that what we are already doing until carbon becomes more expensive due to scarcity. We cannot wait that long.

So why doesn't the government just ban the use of oil completely? Burning it is destroying the planet, isn't it? If we cannot burn oil then we will greatly accelerate the transition to some other fuel source. Hey, I think I am getting the hang of this "being a liberal" thing!

That's the extremity of measures that the tax on carbon is designed to circumvent. But the longer we wait, the more likely that measures by government fiat become more likely.

And liberal jokes aside, you either accept the premise for forcing change or you don't. If you are a denier, then fine, let's not waste each other's time. If not, then can have a discussion on what's the best way to accomplish it.

As far as I am concerned, this is about rational thinking, not politics.

[homersapien 11,373]

Here is the deal, why would we want the government tax oil even more? No matter what they say they will use it for, they will just waste the money on something because they ran out of all the tax money they got on something else.

If you really want to make an impact on global warming, makes more sense to me to work with third world and developing industrial countries to reduce the amount of pollution that are putting out. You would see more immediate results that way. What does it matter if the US cleans up more when you got the likes of China, India and many more spewing all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere.

Guess you don't keep up with environmental news, huh? Try searching for: Paris conference

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Here is the deal, why would we want the government tax oil even more? No matter what they say they will use it for, they will just waste the money on something because they ran out of all the tax money they got on something else.

If you really want to make an impact on global warming, makes more sense to me to work with third world and developing industrial countries to reduce the amount of pollution that are putting out. You would see more immediate results that way. What does it matter if the US cleans up more when you got the likes of China, India and many more spewing all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere.

Guess you don't keep up with environmental news, huh? Try searching for: Paris conference

Nope. Guess you don't keep up with the government's stellar record of spending our tax money responsibly.

Lucky for us, this is more of a symbolic move that has no real chance of actually passing.

[Guest NC1406]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

This thread is about taxing crude oil. All other carbon based fuels are not included in the proposal.

[homersapien 11,373]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

This thread is about taxing crude oil. All other carbon based fuels are not included in the proposal.

OK, but I don't see the problem with arguing the general case for taxing carbon, even if it's not the specific case mentioned in the original article.

But we can switch to that if you like. Why is an additional tax on gas a bad way to raise the funds for the highway infrastructure work we need? Seems fair to me.

How would you rather the money for that work be raised?

[homersapien 11,373]

Here is the deal, why would we want the government tax oil even more? No matter what they say they will use it for, they will just waste the money on something because they ran out of all the tax money they got on something else.

If you really want to make an impact on global warming, makes more sense to me to work with third world and developing industrial countries to reduce the amount of pollution that are putting out. You would see more immediate results that way. What does it matter if the US cleans up more when you got the likes of China, India and many more spewing all kinds of stuff into the atmosphere.

Guess you don't keep up with environmental news, huh? Try searching for: Paris conference

Nope. Guess you don't keep up with the government's stellar record of spending our tax money responsibly.

Lucky for us, this is more of a symbolic move that has no real chance of actually passing.

Ha ha, good one. :-\

I'm not interested in arguing your opinions of government. I'd rather stick to specific, substantive subjects.

[Guest NC1406]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

This thread is about taxing crude oil. All other carbon based fuels are not included in the proposal.

OK, but I don't see the problem with arguing the general case.

Agreed. The proposal picks one aspect of carbon fuels and ignores all others. Definitely picking winners and losers. Government tends to do that. Just look at the coal industry today to see how that occurs. Crude oil seems to be next. Personally I find the process comical.

[homersapien 11,373]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

This thread is about taxing crude oil. All other carbon based fuels are not included in the proposal.

OK, but I don't see the problem with arguing the general case.

Agreed. The proposal picks one aspect of carbon fuels and ignores all others. Definitely picking winners and losers. Government tends to do that. Just look at the coal industry today to see how that occurs. Crude oil seems to be next. Personally I find the process comical.

As I understand it, the rationale for this particular tax was for infrastructure spending instead of carbon reduction. That would explain why other sources of carbon - primarily used for different purposes - weren't included.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

Algae with Power Plants Homer, I disagree with you and the analogy of the phones is something I guess you don't get from your earlier statements. You say get rid of all carbon based fuels which won't happen as biodiesel is here to stay because it works. Also, How do you propose to fly airplanes without carbon based fuels?

Pushing forward by taxing gas products in order to make a switch to alternative energy sources as well doesn't work because it only hurts the poor and middle class in the long run.

Also, something you haven't addressed in pushing your idea is how do you explain the large carbon footprint on making batteries? The current battery technology with all of the shipping involved puts out a huge carbon footprint and they hybrid battery cars need to be changed around the 7-10 yr mark which is expensive.

You keep saying we are running out of time. What is your time frame that we are running out of? What is the push besides GW?

You seem to think that pushing the price up on fuel would make these other technologies just be developed or used...electric cars aren't there yet unless you don't have much of a commute, they sure can't go long distance. There are ways that we could do better, i.e. putting up solar panels in large parking lots to help charge these cars and reduce the business electrical draw on the grid but if it would be profitable or even zero sum then more businesses would do it but it doesn't pay off in the long run or takes too long to pay off. Run the numbers and you would see.

Algae is better for bio fuels take a read of the link that I included.

[Guest NC1406]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

Algae with Power Plants Homer, I disagree with you and the analogy of the phones is something I guess you don't get from your earlier statements. You say get rid of all carbon based fuels which won't happen as biodiesel is here to stay because it works. Also, How do you propose to fly airplanes without carbon based fuels?

Pushing forward by taxing gas products in order to make a switch to alternative energy sources as well doesn't work because it only hurts the poor and middle class in the long run.

Also, something you haven't addressed in pushing your idea is how do you explain the large carbon footprint on making batteries? The current battery technology with all of the shipping involved puts out a huge carbon footprint and they hybrid battery cars need to be changed around the 7-10 yr mark which is expensive.

You keep saying we are running out of time. What is your time frame that we are running out of? What is the push besides GW?

You seem to think that pushing the price up on fuel would make these other technologies just be developed or used...electric cars aren't there yet unless you don't have much of a commute, they sure can't go long distance. There are ways that we could do better, i.e. putting up solar panels in large parking lots to help charge these cars and reduce the business electrical draw on the grid but if it would be profitable or even zero sum then more businesses would do it but it doesn't pay off in the long run or takes too long to pay off. Run the numbers and you would see.

Algae is better for bio fuels take a read of the link that I included.

Biodiesel is not any better than ethanol. Most bio cannot withstand the rigors of everyday usage. Looks good in the labs but in the real world it creates some real challenges. I know even here in NC many State agencies refrain from using the B20 (diesel with a 20% bio blend) during the winter. Even in our climate this product will gel in the winter. Stuff clogs filters and the "bugs" (bacteria) you get in that stuff really creates some major tank maintenance issues. A 5% bio is still utilized at most terminal locations year round but only because of the RFS. Economically it makes no sense even with the subsidies. The mandate of the RFS keeps it in the mix.

[Guest NC1406]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

This thread is about taxing crude oil. All other carbon based fuels are not included in the proposal.

OK, but I don't see the problem with arguing the general case for taxing carbon, even if it's not the specific case mentioned in the original article.

But we can switch to that if you like. Why is an additional tax on gas a bad way to raise the funds for the highway infrastructure work we need? Seems fair to me.

How would you rather the money for that work be raised?

The proposed tax was not for road infrastructure. It was for driverless cars and other green projects. The federal gas tax is already used for rails what else do we need to cover with it?

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Biodiesel can be used to fire energy plants. It has been used in long haul industry for a few years. There are some problems but they can be overcome by coating the tanks etc. I think the problem with it is sometimes in certain cases that it sits in the tanks too long. It is viable for certain things and if we use algae it works much better for cost.

[homersapien 11,373]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

This thread is about taxing crude oil. All other carbon based fuels are not included in the proposal.

OK, but I don't see the problem with arguing the general case for taxing carbon, even if it's not the specific case mentioned in the original article.

But we can switch to that if you like. Why is an additional tax on gas a bad way to raise the funds for the highway infrastructure work we need? Seems fair to me.

How would you rather the money for that work be raised?

The proposed tax was not for road infrastructure. It was for driverless cars and other green projects. The federal gas tax is already used for rails what else do we need to cover with it?

Yeah, I see that now.

That being the case, while I would support such a tax for infrastructure improvement, I would not support using it for funding commercial development of specific new technologies.

I do think government has a role in funding basic research, but I would oppose connecting that funding to a narrowly applied tax.

Even so, as I have been arguing, taxing carbon is generally a good idea regardless of how the money is spent. But such a policy should be applied to all carbon-based fuels equally according to the amount of carbon they produce.

[Guest NC1406]

Biodiesel can be used to fire energy plants. It has been used in long haul industry for a few years. There are some problems but they can be overcome by coating the tanks etc. I think the problem with it is sometimes in certain cases that it sits in the tanks too long. It is viable for certain things and if we use algae it works much better for cost.

Unfamiliar with the "coating" of tanks. Do you have some information on that process? Currently exploring a bigger biodiesel project for our company but I just can't financially justify the project at this point. We actually are producing some algae bio already but again it's more of a research project and is far from a profit center. If you utilized the bio in an environment that was climate controlled then that would eliminate some of the issues. Long haul trucking in the winter is a recipe for disaster.

[Guest NC1406]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

This thread is about taxing crude oil. All other carbon based fuels are not included in the proposal.

OK, but I don't see the problem with arguing the general case for taxing carbon, even if it's not the specific case mentioned in the original article.

But we can switch to that if you like. Why is an additional tax on gas a bad way to raise the funds for the highway infrastructure work we need? Seems fair to me.

How would you rather the money for that work be raised?

The proposed tax was not for road infrastructure. It was for driverless cars and other green projects. The federal gas tax is already used for rails what else do we need to cover with it?

Yeah, I see that now. I would support such a tax for infrastructure improvement, but I would not support it for funding the commercial development of new technologies. I do think government has a role in funding basic research, but I would oppose connecting that funding to a narrowly applied tax.

Even so, as I have been arguing taxing carbon is generally a good idea regardless of how the money is spent. But that's a comprehensive policy and should be applied to all carbon-based fuels.

While I disagree with your approach/suggestions I do understand that taxing an undesirable product could limit its use. If that becomes the status quo then my business will need to adapt. We will be ready.

[homersapien 11,373]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

Algae with Power Plants Homer, I disagree with you and the analogy of the phones is something I guess you don't get from your earlier statements. You say get rid of all carbon based fuels which won't happen as biodiesel is here to stay because it works. Also, How do you propose to fly airplanes without carbon based fuels?

Pushing forward by taxing gas products in order to make a switch to alternative energy sources as well doesn't work because it only hurts the poor and middle class in the long run.

Also, something you haven't addressed in pushing your idea is how do you explain the large carbon footprint on making batteries? The current battery technology with all of the shipping involved puts out a huge carbon footprint and they hybrid battery cars need to be changed around the 7-10 yr mark which is expensive.

You keep saying we are running out of time. What is your time frame that we are running out of? What is the push besides GW?

You seem to think that pushing the price up on fuel would make these other technologies just be developed or used...electric cars aren't there yet unless you don't have much of a commute, they sure can't go long distance. There are ways that we could do better, i.e. putting up solar panels in large parking lots to help charge these cars and reduce the business electrical draw on the grid but if it would be profitable or even zero sum then more businesses would do it but it doesn't pay off in the long run or takes too long to pay off. Run the numbers and you would see.

Algae is better for bio fuels take a read of the link that I included.

Biodiesel is not any better than ethanol. Most bio cannot withstand the rigors of everyday usage. Looks good in the labs but in the real world it creates some real challenges. I know even here in NC many State agencies refrain from using the B20 (diesel with a 20% bio blend) during the winter. Even in our climate this product will gel in the winter. Stuff clogs filters and the "bugs" (bacteria) you get in that stuff really creates some major tank maintenance issues. A 5% bio is still utilized at most terminal locations year round but only because of the RFS. Economically it makes no sense even with the subsidies. The mandate of the RFS keeps it in the mix.

Emissions control for diesel engines is hard enough to accomplish without biodiesel. (I can say that as an owner of a VW TDI :-\ )

I don't see it as much different than EtOH in gas. Adding it to furnace/boiler fuel oil might make more sense that trying to use it in a diesel.

[homersapien 11,373]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

Algae with Power Plants

1) Homer, I disagree with you and the analogy of the phones is something I guess you don't get from your earlier statements.

2) You say get rid of all carbon based fuels which won't happen as biodiesel is here to stay because it works.

3) Also, How do you propose to fly airplanes without carbon based fuels?

1) I don't really understand this. But there were no barriers to entry for cell phones while there are enormous barriers to entry for non-carbon fuels. That's just fact.

2) You are probably right in that we'll never eliminate all carbon based fuels. I don't see the connection of that to biodiesel, which is also a carbon-based fuel at any rate. Switching to renewable carbon-based fuel won't solve the problem of adding carbon to the atmosphere.

3) Good question. I would expect military aviation would continue with hydrocarbon fuels. Civilian aviation would become progressively more expensive and ultimately be replaced with something like high speed rail.

Bottom line, future transportation systems will be electrically powered.

[Guest NC1406]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

Algae with Power Plants Homer, I disagree with you and the analogy of the phones is something I guess you don't get from your earlier statements. You say get rid of all carbon based fuels which won't happen as biodiesel is here to stay because it works. Also, How do you propose to fly airplanes without carbon based fuels?

Pushing forward by taxing gas products in order to make a switch to alternative energy sources as well doesn't work because it only hurts the poor and middle class in the long run.

Also, something you haven't addressed in pushing your idea is how do you explain the large carbon footprint on making batteries? The current battery technology with all of the shipping involved puts out a huge carbon footprint and they hybrid battery cars need to be changed around the 7-10 yr mark which is expensive.

You keep saying we are running out of time. What is your time frame that we are running out of? What is the push besides GW?

You seem to think that pushing the price up on fuel would make these other technologies just be developed or used...electric cars aren't there yet unless you don't have much of a commute, they sure can't go long distance. There are ways that we could do better, i.e. putting up solar panels in large parking lots to help charge these cars and reduce the business electrical draw on the grid but if it would be profitable or even zero sum then more businesses would do it but it doesn't pay off in the long run or takes too long to pay off. Run the numbers and you would see.

Algae is better for bio fuels take a read of the link that I included.

Biodiesel is not any better than ethanol. Most bio cannot withstand the rigors of everyday usage. Looks good in the labs but in the real world it creates some real challenges. I know even here in NC many State agencies refrain from using the B20 (diesel with a 20% bio blend) during the winter. Even in our climate this product will gel in the winter. Stuff clogs filters and the "bugs" (bacteria) you get in that stuff really creates some major tank maintenance issues. A 5% bio is still utilized at most terminal locations year round but only because of the RFS. Economically it makes no sense even with the subsidies. The mandate of the RFS keeps it in the mix.

Emissions control for diesel engines is hard enough to accomplish without biodiesel. (I can say that as an owner of a VW TDI :-\/> )

I don't see it as much different than EtOH in gas. Adding it to furnace/boiler fuel oil might make more sense that trying to use it in a diesel.

There are many different types of biodiesel. Bio from animal fat turns into a solid at really high temps at the start of winter. The higher grade bios claim they will not gel but that has not been our experience in the real world. We looked at using bio for our home heating customers but we would have frozen those poor people in the winter. Thankfully we sold off the home heat business a couple years back because that was a labor and cash intensive business. We sold the propane business as well but the non compete is up and that is some good clean heat for the rural communities. Nat gas is still the bomb though it just isn't an option for the rural customers.

[Guest NC1406]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

Algae with Power Plants

1) Homer, I disagree with you and the analogy of the phones is something I guess you don't get from your earlier statements.

2) You say get rid of all carbon based fuels which won't happen as biodiesel is here to stay because it works.

3) Also, How do you propose to fly airplanes without carbon based fuels?

1) I don't really understand this. But there were no barriers to entry for cell phones while there are enormous barriers to entry for non-carbon fuels. That's just fact.

2) You are probably right in that we'll never eliminate all carbon based fuels. I don't see the connection of that to biodiesel, which is also a carbon-based fuel at any rate. Switching to renewable carbon-based fuel won't solve the problem of adding carbon to the atmosphere.

3) Good question. I would expect military aviation would continue with hydrocarbon fuels. Civilian aviation would become progressively more expensive and ultimately be replaced with something like high speed rail.

Bottom line, future transportation systems will be electrically powered.

We deliver a poop load of diesel to electric plants this time of year. Electric is not as clean as it appears.

Oh and let me add many demand no bio (even at 5%).

[homersapien 11,373]

.....Pushing forward by taxing gas products in order to make a switch to alternative energy sources as well doesn't work because it only hurts the poor and middle class in the long run.

The poor always suffer the most during transition. The impact of global warming will also affect the poor more than the wealthy.

Bottom line, that would have to be addressed as a separate problem. But it is my contention that transitioning to a non-carbon fueled economy will open many more jobs for everyone.

Also, something you haven't addressed in pushing your idea is how do you explain the large carbon footprint on making batteries? The current battery technology with all of the shipping involved puts out a huge carbon footprint and they hybrid battery cars need to be changed around the 7-10 yr mark which is expensive.

All true, but you need to consider the lifetime carbon footprint. If the carbon required to produce a battery is more than the amount of carbon eliminated by that battery over it's lifetime, then that battery is not a good option. But I don't think that is the case.

Of course as a non-carbon energy system gains prevalence, the carbon used to produce anything will drop by definition.

You keep saying we are running out of time. What is your time frame that we are running out of? What is the push besides GW?

Another good question. No one can provide a precise answer for this. But the effects of AGW are already becoming apparent and they will become much more apparent over decades instead of centuries. Thirty years is the estimate I've seen:

http://www.fastcoexi...e-but-who-cares

http://www.businessi...-control-2014-9

What's disturbing are the lag times associated with making large changes and the lag time with seeing results from those changes. It's quite possible we have already passed the decision point where severe affects from AGW can be prevented.

You seem to think that pushing the price up on fuel would make these other technologies just be developed or used...electric cars aren't there yet unless you don't have much of a commute, they sure can't go long distance. There are ways that we could do better, i.e. putting up solar panels in large parking lots to help charge these cars and reduce the business electrical draw on the grid but if it would be profitable or even zero sum then more businesses would do it but it doesn't pay off in the long run or takes too long to pay off. Run the numbers and you would see.

I agree. That's exactly the point I am making with the need to increase the cost of carbon fuels.

[Guest NC1406]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

Algae with Power Plants Homer, I disagree with you and the analogy of the phones is something I guess you don't get from your earlier statements. You say get rid of all carbon based fuels which won't happen as biodiesel is here to stay because it works. Also, How do you propose to fly airplanes without carbon based fuels?

Pushing forward by taxing gas products in order to make a switch to alternative energy sources as well doesn't work because it only hurts the poor and middle class in the long run.

Also, something you haven't addressed in pushing your idea is how do you explain the large carbon footprint on making batteries? The current battery technology with all of the shipping involved puts out a huge carbon footprint and they hybrid battery cars need to be changed around the 7-10 yr mark which is expensive.

You keep saying we are running out of time. What is your time frame that we are running out of? What is the push besides GW?

You seem to think that pushing the price up on fuel would make these other technologies just be developed or used...electric cars aren't there yet unless you don't have much of a commute, they sure can't go long distance. There are ways that we could do better, i.e. putting up solar panels in large parking lots to help charge these cars and reduce the business electrical draw on the grid but if it would be profitable or even zero sum then more businesses would do it but it doesn't pay off in the long run or takes too long to pay off. Run the numbers and you would see.

Algae is better for bio fuels take a read of the link that I included.

Biodiesel is not any better than ethanol. Most bio cannot withstand the rigors of everyday usage. Looks good in the labs but in the real world it creates some real challenges. I know even here in NC many State agencies refrain from using the B20 (diesel with a 20% bio blend) during the winter. Even in our climate this product will gel in the winter. Stuff clogs filters and the "bugs" (bacteria) you get in that stuff really creates some major tank maintenance issues. A 5% bio is still utilized at most terminal locations year round but only because of the RFS. Economically it makes no sense even with the subsidies. The mandate of the RFS keeps it in the mix.

Emissions control for diesel engines is hard enough to accomplish without biodiesel. (I can say that as an owner of a VW TDI :-\/> )

I don't see it as much different than EtOH in gas. Adding it to furnace/boiler fuel oil might make more sense that trying to use it in a diesel.

The new Diesel engines are actually very clean. The recent VW scandal didn't help the reputation but you are actually walking the walk with that vehicle. Great engine. You should come see what we run in our tractor trailers. The emissions have been greatly reduced. Big strides have been made in technology. We resisted the new engines and occasionally have some regen issues with the new product but they are clean and efficient.

[homersapien 11,373]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

Algae with Power Plants

1) Homer, I disagree with you and the analogy of the phones is something I guess you don't get from your earlier statements.

2) You say get rid of all carbon based fuels which won't happen as biodiesel is here to stay because it works.

3) Also, How do you propose to fly airplanes without carbon based fuels?

1) I don't really understand this. But there were no barriers to entry for cell phones while there are enormous barriers to entry for non-carbon fuels. That's just fact.

2) You are probably right in that we'll never eliminate all carbon based fuels. I don't see the connection of that to biodiesel, which is also a carbon-based fuel at any rate. Switching to renewable carbon-based fuel won't solve the problem of adding carbon to the atmosphere.

3) Good question. I would expect military aviation would continue with hydrocarbon fuels. Civilian aviation would become progressively more expensive and ultimately be replaced with something like high speed rail.

Bottom line, future transportation systems will be electrically powered.

We deliver a poop load of diesel to electric plants this time of year. Electric is not as clean as it appears.

Oh and let me add many demand no bio (even at 5%).

I didn't mean to imply that electric is inherently cleaner because it's electricity. Coal fired electric plants are extremely dirty.

I was referring to the fact that electricity - derived from non-carbon-emitting sources - will ultimately be the form of energy that drives transportation. I suppose hydrogen would be another candidate, but it will be produced with electricity too.

[homersapien 11,373]

homer do you happen to have an investment in a carbon exchange or something? You keep pushing that agenda in this thread. You have your views on the subject which I don't agree with. Your theory that alternative energy will not come to market is nonsense...we didn't need portable phones or smart phones for that matter but we have them because of consumer demand.

I did not start this thread which is about taxing carbon-based fuels. I am defending the idea as a good one, which it is.

The phone analogy doesn't work. There were no barriers to marketing a personal phone you could carry in your pocket. The transition was seamless.

It is nonsense to assume alternative energy sources will displace carbon-based sources on their own. That strategy by definition assumes we will continue to use carbon-based fuels for a long, long time, which we don't have.

Algae with Power Plants Homer, I disagree with you and the analogy of the phones is something I guess you don't get from your earlier statements. You say get rid of all carbon based fuels which won't happen as biodiesel is here to stay because it works. Also, How do you propose to fly airplanes without carbon based fuels?

Pushing forward by taxing gas products in order to make a switch to alternative energy sources as well doesn't work because it only hurts the poor and middle class in the long run.

Also, something you haven't addressed in pushing your idea is how do you explain the large carbon footprint on making batteries? The current battery technology with all of the shipping involved puts out a huge carbon footprint and they hybrid battery cars need to be changed around the 7-10 yr mark which is expensive.

You keep saying we are running out of time. What is your time frame that we are running out of? What is the push besides GW?

You seem to think that pushing the price up on fuel would make these other technologies just be developed or used...electric cars aren't there yet unless you don't have much of a commute, they sure can't go long distance. There are ways that we could do better, i.e. putting up solar panels in large parking lots to help charge these cars and reduce the business electrical draw on the grid but if it would be profitable or even zero sum then more businesses would do it but it doesn't pay off in the long run or takes too long to pay off. Run the numbers and you would see.

Algae is better for bio fuels take a read of the link that I included.

Biodiesel is not any better than ethanol. Most bio cannot withstand the rigors of everyday usage. Looks good in the labs but in the real world it creates some real challenges. I know even here in NC many State agencies refrain from using the B20 (diesel with a 20% bio blend) during the winter. Even in our climate this product will gel in the winter. Stuff clogs filters and the "bugs" (bacteria) you get in that stuff really creates some major tank maintenance issues. A 5% bio is still utilized at most terminal locations year round but only because of the RFS. Economically it makes no sense even with the subsidies. The mandate of the RFS keeps it in the mix.

Emissions control for diesel engines is hard enough to accomplish without biodiesel. (I can say that as an owner of a VW TDI :-\/> )

I don't see it as much different than EtOH in gas. Adding it to furnace/boiler fuel oil might make more sense that trying to use it in a diesel.

The new Diesel engines are actually very clean. The recent VW scandal didn't help the reputation but you are actually walking the walk with that vehicle. Great engine. You should come see what we run in our tractor trailers. The emissions have been greatly reduced. Big strides have been made in technology. We resisted the new engines and occasionally have some regen issues with the new product but they are clean and efficient.

I love my TDI. And you are correct about the technological strides that have been made in all internal combustion engines. It's been fascinating to observe.