A new direction for the PP
Information
Here we go again oil is at $66 and going to $80 per barrel and nothing on that front has been accomplished in now over a year. Lets drop back and punt.it through the goal posts
Members: 7
Latest Activity: Oct 28
The revised electrical energy and vehicle energy plans.
Here is the plan on the electrical energy front
DC is seeking a "balance between conservation and reliable supply of energy at a reasonable price"
This is per Chandrashekar Tamirisa
Either DC doesn't know what they are doing or they are seeking authoritarian control
by limiting the ability for individual to save money.
It is the latter, I have seen through their smoke screen.!!!!!
The effect of conservation on the reliable supply of energy
As load is shed through individual conservation measures
after the embodied energy in the conservation measure is recouped
results in
lower utility bill for consumer
less load on the transmission line
less load on the generators
less fuel consumed at the generators (these are the variable costs per kWh)
less pollution from the generators (total SO2 and NO2 is reduced)
Maintenance cost remain constant for the utility (these are the fixed cost per kWh)
The utility is regulated by the states Public utility commission PUC.
The PUC sets the fixed costs that the utility is allowed to charge.
The PUC basis it's judgment on data on utility operating budgets.
As when labor contracts are renegotiated or when capital investments must be made.
The PUC sets the variable costs that the utility is allowed to charge
Usually there is a constant that the utility can charge call it fuel delivery overhead charge
and there is a surcharge which can be added and is function of market price for the fuel.
How in this PUC procedure is the reliability of the supply of energy affected?
The utility is still getting paid its fixed and variable over head costs so it is not there!
So that only leaves the fuel supply chain.
Less demand for coal, NG, oil, and nuclear fuel rods means they have to produce less
Producing less fuel does not effect reliability of the fuel supply chain.
Except in the extreme case of a step discontinuity of demand
Which can't happen because implementation of conservation practices takes time on the order of years.
"balance between conservation and reliable supply of energy at a reasonable price"
Relating this statement to 50% of the population who own their homes
means that the marxists don't want individual initiative to conserve
Even though the marxists have graciously provided residential energy tax credits.
The individual will not be motivated to spend money to conserve if there is no reward.
The individual still wants to save money however.
So, The individuals only recourse then is to reduce their standard of living.
Wash dishes by hand, hang laundry outside to dry, not use any time saving appliances
Not use and air conditioner or heater. Basically go live in a cave.
"balance between conservation and reliable supply of energy at a reasonable price"
Relating this statement to 50% of the population who live in apartments
Who have no control of of the energy efficiency of HVAC or hot water
As these physical plants are owned by the landlord.
And apartment owners can't take advantage of residential energy tax credits as written.
There are no energy tax credits for landlords that would benefit them.
So the landlords are not motivated to install energy efficient appliances.
The apartment dweller only choice is to again reduce their standard of living
Wash dishes by hand, hang laundry outside to dry, not use any time saving appliances
Not use and air conditioner or heater. Basically live in an apartment which has become a cave
This is where cap and trade then comes in.
Part of the revenue from cap and trade auctions of carbon credits
will be provided to apartment dwellers (lower income individuals)
to offset their higher energy costs
Which then results in 50% of the population living in apartments
consuming as much energy as they always have
The apartment dwellers Remain a part of the energy problem
and these people which are the liberal marxist voting base have been rewarded.
While the other 50% of the population who own their homes pay the bill.
To put a stop to this thievery the states must devise energy tax credits for landlords.
The legislation must have the effect of motivating the landlords in install energy conserving appliances
And the end result is the apartment dweller is benefited by lower energy consumption increasing there savings
And the apartment dwellers then become part of the energy solution
Here is the plan on the oil front
Politics is about compromise.
There will be no compromise with Obama's agenda for authoritarian marxist control.
Had PP been successful in obtaining low cost conversions of cars to run on NG last summer then GM and Ford and Chrysler might have offered the conversion themselves to unload excess inventory and those driving CNG cars would have had more disposable income which would have prompted more purchases of GM automobiles. An increased demand for NG might have increased price of NG but the fall back position for the consumer would have been installing electric ground source heat pumps replacing NG heating using the generous 30% tax credit and utility company rebates of $750 per ton. And as we just saw in February oil prices would have plummeted due to decreased demand. The reduction of disposable income had an effect on the solvency of mortgage holders which may have been still significant enough to cause the Wall St. crash. I expect though that there would have been only a correction ameliorated by more rosy picture of future energy costs and independence from oil imports. But oh well T. Boone focused on his windmills and not fuel costs.
I suggest take the PP to the states and tell the marxists to go take a hike.
Every state is unique in its consumption of energy, renewable energy resources its desired mode of transportation, its pollution impacts, its degree and nature of industrialization, its degree of urbanization, its culture and diverseness of its people and in its citizens. HR 1835 along with all the other legislation is transcending state lines in a national dialog about energy policy. The federal government cannot rise above or go beyond the limits of the states as this is a republic. All powers are held by the states unless specifically granted to the federal government. The federal government has not been granted the power to dictate a national energy policy
All of the legislative meddling is all about more powerful intrusive centralized control of the citizens energy and information consumption and not about the price of gasoline which was the whole point of the PP. Meddlers from one state are attempting to apply their failed social and energy policies to all states. CA emmisions standards are not applicable to the country as a whole. Nor is Washington states nearly emissions free hydro electric generation available to most states. And certainly CA social policies a $21B state deficit model one that all states will rush to embrace.
This is the perfect example of federal meddling and its effect on a states budget.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=649
And now Obama comes along
intent on cap and trade energy tax
increasing corp income taxes
increasing other taxes
not doing anything to reduce the price of fuel
increasing inflation through deficit spending
driving more jobs off shore
I see no change!!!!!
T. Boone has got to refocus the PP on the states
1) The states can overrule the EPA rules on NG conversions
2) The states have the NG distribution infrastructure
3) The states have a dire need to reduce costs for the state government and its citizens
4) The states can react quicker and with more cooperation and less obtrusiveness
5) The states can implement the needed legislation independent of the federal government
See Energy plan for Missouri
Missouri natural gas consumption goes from:
1. 152 billion cubic feet (home and commercial heat) to
2. 229 billion cubic feet (no home heat but add natural gas for vehicles)
Missour realizes
Savings from CNG for vehicles $4.57 billion dollars.
Savings from GSHP for home heat $1.32 billion dollars.
Subtotal savings $5.89 billion dollars per year.
Missouri GDP increase from
CNG vehicle installation labor income $2.45 billion dollars
GSHP installation labor income $1.8 billion dollars
Subtotal installation labor one time $4.25 billion dollars.
Subtotal installation labor spread over 4 years $1.06 billion dollars per year.
Total additional disposable income of $6.95 billion dollars per year.
As compared to Missouri 2009 general revenue of $8.799 billion dollars.
As compared to Missouri GDP of $33,964 billion dollars.
That comes to an additional $27.81 billion dollars circulated in the
Missouri economy by Missourians over the next four years. Which is
$10,696 for each and every one of the 2.6 million households. This is
wealth that Missourians don't have now because it is exported outside
Missouri and outside the US.
You can see on the state level the PP is easy!
And the PP has a very direct, beneficial, evident, and near term positive impact on the Missouri economy.
Chandrashekar Tamirisa said - <<as I have indicated before in the PP blogs is to just do it. Do not wait for the government if YOU want change. Just DO change. The EPA most certainly would not mind because NG is cleaner than gasoline. If you wait for the government you are asking for more government. Where there is a need there is a market. And where a need can be created there can be a market.>>
We don't need to go so far as civil disobedience as Chandrashekar Tamirisa suggests. The states could easily implement a emissions test requirement to verify that the conversion is working within EPA guidelines.
DC is seeking a "balance between conservation and reliable supply of energy at a reasonable price"
This is per Chandrashekar Tamirisa
Either DC doesn't know what they are doing or they are seeking authoritarian control
by limiting the ability for individual to save money.
It is the latter, I have seen through their smoke screen.!!!!!
The effect of conservation on the reliable supply of energy
As load is shed through individual conservation measures
after the embodied energy in the conservation measure is recouped
results in
lower utility bill for consumer
less load on the transmission line
less load on the generators
less fuel consumed at the generators (these are the variable costs per kWh)
less pollution from the generators (total SO2 and NO2 is reduced)
Maintenance cost remain constant for the utility (these are the fixed cost per kWh)
The utility is regulated by the states Public utility commission PUC.
The PUC sets the fixed costs that the utility is allowed to charge.
The PUC basis it's judgment on data on utility operating budgets.
As when labor contracts are renegotiated or when capital investments must be made.
The PUC sets the variable costs that the utility is allowed to charge
Usually there is a constant that the utility can charge call it fuel delivery overhead charge
and there is a surcharge which can be added and is function of market price for the fuel.
How in this PUC procedure is the reliability of the supply of energy affected?
The utility is still getting paid its fixed and variable over head costs so it is not there!
So that only leaves the fuel supply chain.
Less demand for coal, NG, oil, and nuclear fuel rods means they have to produce less
Producing less fuel does not effect reliability of the fuel supply chain.
Except in the extreme case of a step discontinuity of demand
Which can't happen because implementation of conservation practices takes time on the order of years.
"balance between conservation and reliable supply of energy at a reasonable price"
Relating this statement to 50% of the population who own their homes
means that the marxists don't want individual initiative to conserve
Even though the marxists have graciously provided residential energy tax credits.
The individual will not be motivated to spend money to conserve if there is no reward.
The individual still wants to save money however.
So, The individuals only recourse then is to reduce their standard of living.
Wash dishes by hand, hang laundry outside to dry, not use any time saving appliances
Not use and air conditioner or heater. Basically go live in a cave.
"balance between conservation and reliable supply of energy at a reasonable price"
Relating this statement to 50% of the population who live in apartments
Who have no control of of the energy efficiency of HVAC or hot water
As these physical plants are owned by the landlord.
And apartment owners can't take advantage of residential energy tax credits as written.
There are no energy tax credits for landlords that would benefit them.
So the landlords are not motivated to install energy efficient appliances.
The apartment dweller only choice is to again reduce their standard of living
Wash dishes by hand, hang laundry outside to dry, not use any time saving appliances
Not use and air conditioner or heater. Basically live in an apartment which has become a cave
This is where cap and trade then comes in.
Part of the revenue from cap and trade auctions of carbon credits
will be provided to apartment dwellers (lower income individuals)
to offset their higher energy costs
Which then results in 50% of the population living in apartments
consuming as much energy as they always have
The apartment dwellers Remain a part of the energy problem
and these people which are the liberal marxist voting base have been rewarded.
While the other 50% of the population who own their homes pay the bill.
To put a stop to this thievery the states must devise energy tax credits for landlords.
The legislation must have the effect of motivating the landlords in install energy conserving appliances
And the end result is the apartment dweller is benefited by lower energy consumption increasing there savings
And the apartment dwellers then become part of the energy solution
Here is the plan on the oil front
Politics is about compromise.
There will be no compromise with Obama's agenda for authoritarian marxist control.
Had PP been successful in obtaining low cost conversions of cars to run on NG last summer then GM and Ford and Chrysler might have offered the conversion themselves to unload excess inventory and those driving CNG cars would have had more disposable income which would have prompted more purchases of GM automobiles. An increased demand for NG might have increased price of NG but the fall back position for the consumer would have been installing electric ground source heat pumps replacing NG heating using the generous 30% tax credit and utility company rebates of $750 per ton. And as we just saw in February oil prices would have plummeted due to decreased demand. The reduction of disposable income had an effect on the solvency of mortgage holders which may have been still significant enough to cause the Wall St. crash. I expect though that there would have been only a correction ameliorated by more rosy picture of future energy costs and independence from oil imports. But oh well T. Boone focused on his windmills and not fuel costs.
I suggest take the PP to the states and tell the marxists to go take a hike.
Every state is unique in its consumption of energy, renewable energy resources its desired mode of transportation, its pollution impacts, its degree and nature of industrialization, its degree of urbanization, its culture and diverseness of its people and in its citizens. HR 1835 along with all the other legislation is transcending state lines in a national dialog about energy policy. The federal government cannot rise above or go beyond the limits of the states as this is a republic. All powers are held by the states unless specifically granted to the federal government. The federal government has not been granted the power to dictate a national energy policy
All of the legislative meddling is all about more powerful intrusive centralized control of the citizens energy and information consumption and not about the price of gasoline which was the whole point of the PP. Meddlers from one state are attempting to apply their failed social and energy policies to all states. CA emmisions standards are not applicable to the country as a whole. Nor is Washington states nearly emissions free hydro electric generation available to most states. And certainly CA social policies a $21B state deficit model one that all states will rush to embrace.
This is the perfect example of federal meddling and its effect on a states budget.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=649
And now Obama comes along
intent on cap and trade energy tax
increasing corp income taxes
increasing other taxes
not doing anything to reduce the price of fuel
increasing inflation through deficit spending
driving more jobs off shore
I see no change!!!!!
T. Boone has got to refocus the PP on the states
1) The states can overrule the EPA rules on NG conversions
2) The states have the NG distribution infrastructure
3) The states have a dire need to reduce costs for the state government and its citizens
4) The states can react quicker and with more cooperation and less obtrusiveness
5) The states can implement the needed legislation independent of the federal government
See Energy plan for Missouri
Missouri natural gas consumption goes from:
1. 152 billion cubic feet (home and commercial heat) to
2. 229 billion cubic feet (no home heat but add natural gas for vehicles)
Missour realizes
Savings from CNG for vehicles $4.57 billion dollars.
Savings from GSHP for home heat $1.32 billion dollars.
Subtotal savings $5.89 billion dollars per year.
Missouri GDP increase from
CNG vehicle installation labor income $2.45 billion dollars
GSHP installation labor income $1.8 billion dollars
Subtotal installation labor one time $4.25 billion dollars.
Subtotal installation labor spread over 4 years $1.06 billion dollars per year.
Total additional disposable income of $6.95 billion dollars per year.
As compared to Missouri 2009 general revenue of $8.799 billion dollars.
As compared to Missouri GDP of $33,964 billion dollars.
That comes to an additional $27.81 billion dollars circulated in the
Missouri economy by Missourians over the next four years. Which is
$10,696 for each and every one of the 2.6 million households. This is
wealth that Missourians don't have now because it is exported outside
Missouri and outside the US.
You can see on the state level the PP is easy!
And the PP has a very direct, beneficial, evident, and near term positive impact on the Missouri economy.
Chandrashekar Tamirisa said - <<as I have indicated before in the PP blogs is to just do it. Do not wait for the government if YOU want change. Just DO change. The EPA most certainly would not mind because NG is cleaner than gasoline. If you wait for the government you are asking for more government. Where there is a need there is a market. And where a need can be created there can be a market.>>
We don't need to go so far as civil disobedience as Chandrashekar Tamirisa suggests. The states could easily implement a emissions test requirement to verify that the conversion is working within EPA guidelines.
Discussion Forum
Start a Discussion
Nobody has added any discussions yet! Add a discussion to get started.
Comment Wall
Add a Comment
-
Comment by Thomas Dixon on October 28, 2009 at 7:51am -
“I suggest take the PP to the states and tell the marxists to go take a hike.”
Using the term Marxist is psycho talk
“Every state is unique in its consumption of energy”
Wrong.
Every state is populated by humans and they all look alike, eat the same foods and live in houses while driving cars to and from work.
Every state uses the same mix of energy resources.
Calling people Marxists is a bit over the top. Please come down to earth and join the rest of us humans in solving our energy needs, ok-?
-
Comment by Mark Hedtke on October 28, 2009 at 7:15am - I just posted some information regarding both CNG and Oil Reserves that may be interesting at: http://push.pickensplan.com/group/DistrictGroupFL24/forum/topics/laws-pertaining-to-alternative
-
Comment by david epps on June 29, 2009 at 5:15am - The state plan on electric energy also meets the proposed cap on CO2 of HR 2454. See PP Members against Cap and Tax.
-
Comment by david epps on June 10, 2009 at 8:25am
-
The regulations say that you can't do anything to a street licensed vehicle which alters its emissions characteristics, as a fuel conversion would of course do, without also certifying that the conversion meets the EPA emissions standards.
The answer no!
The federal government has We the People in shackles unable to exercise our most fundamental freedom, the freedom to survive.
Now Utah and Oklahoma state governments have taken the initiative to run interference between the federal government and the state citizens by tacitly sanctioning conversions by virtue of state tax credits for conversions without stipulating that the conversion be EPA certified.
But the kit manufactures will only sale the conversions as kits and will not do the actual conversion to shield themselves from the EPA. Third party mechanics having an easily obtained license to work on NG and propane equipment do the conversions using the customer supplied kit.
-
Comment by Eric Koch on June 9, 2009 at 6:30pm -
I'm going to be looking into converting my '94' accord lx to ng/syngas...as i've never been the guy who could afford a new car i'm really happy that i'll be able to forward most of the investment (the tanks in particular) to what ever used vehicle i end up with next..
i am very mechanically inclined,and have an 1988 degree in motorcycle mechanics...and so my question is ,can i legally do the conversion my self?
-
Comment by david epps on June 8, 2009 at 11:12pm
-
Attached is McCaskill's response I got RE NAT GAS Act of 2009 letter.
McCaskill. said No NG conversions, period.
So it will take 17 years to replace the 244 million US fleet of gasoline vehicles with NGV's. 14 X $300B = $4.2 trillion of exported wealth.minimum. The liberals love big corporations GM and GE I guess they love BIG OIL too!
We are going to take this vehicle fuel problem to the states who will solve it because it is obvious that McCaskill ain't going to do it!
The states can manage the price of NG and the supply. Within that state.
McCaskill doesn't see the big picture here from where she is standing here
Here is the big picture McCaskill.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SMO_a.htm
In 2008
Missouri residential NG consumption was 113,000 million CF
Missouri commercial NG consumption was 64,000 million CF
Missouri electric power NG consumption was 42,000 million CF (double from 2003
Missouri vehicle fuel NG consumption was 0 million CF
Missouri total 219,000 million CF
Use ground source heat pumps Missouri residential and commercial NG consumption goes to 0.
Using ground source heat pumps Missouri summer electric AC consumption drops by 1/2.
Using ground source heat pumps Missouri electric power NG consumption goes to 0.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_refmg_d_SMO_VTR_mgalpd_a.htm
Missouri 2006 gasoline consumption was 996,000 gallons per day or 363 million gallons per year
Converting vehicles to NG the total consumption of NG will be 229,000 million CF
Essentially the NG consumption remains the same so McCaskill is myopic and the concern for cost for fertilizer is unfounded.
The state and fed tax credits for NG conversion for vehicles would be coupled. Tax payers can't take the NG conversion for their vehicle unless they convert their home to electric ground source hat pumps. It can't get much simpler. The NG utilities stop selling natural gas to residential and commercial consumers and start selling to vehicle fuel consumer. The NG utilities own all the pipeline infrastructure needed,We are being governed by idiots.
Amend the bill to Remove EPA roadblocks to low cost ($1500) NG.propane/ethanol vehicle conversions NOW!, Couple a tax credit for low cost NG.propane/ethanol vehicle conversions and ground source energy credit NOW!"
Dear Mr. Epps:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the increased use of natural gas. I appreciate hearing your views and welcome the opportunity to respond.
We agree that our nation must wean itself off of foreign oil. However, I have concerns about an overreliance on natural gas. Beyond the anticipated expense that comes with a switch to natural gas for vehicles, many believe that the United States has reached a peak in terms of capacity for natural gas production. Moreover, natural gas is a principal component for the production of fertilizers. With the skyrocketing input prices for agricultural operations, I have concerns over the impact this would have on Missouri producers.
However, I am a strong supporter of advanced automotive technology such as hybrid electric, advanced clean diesel, hydrogen and fuel cell technology, in addition to wind and solar energy for the production of power. I believe research and development as well as investment in these technologies will reduce our country’s oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
I supported the Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L. 110-140), a major energy bill that was signed into law in 2008 that focused on increasing the availability of renewable energy and improving energy efficiency. Along with increased fuel economy standards, this bill included an expanded renewable fuels standard that would require the production and use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022. It also set new standards for lighting efficiency for many household products and required energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products.
In addition, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (P.L. 110-343) extended tax credits to those who invest in energy generated by wind farms and solar power, as well as authorizing bonds for clean renewable energy and energy conservation programs on the state and local levels.
It's clear our country needs to reduce its dependence on environmentally harmful energy sources. I believe a broad strategy through investment in clean, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency programs will help providers develop clean energy projects to secure America’s energy independence. As we begin the 111th Congress, I look forward to expanding the reach of these technologies and to finding new, cleaner ways of producing home-grown energy.
Once again, it's great to hear your thoughts on this matter. Please do not hesitate to let me know of any other issues that are important to you.
All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill
-
Comment by david epps on June 5, 2009 at 5:32pm
-
I am fully supportive of tax credits. They are not a subsidy as some liberal wacko's want to call them but rather they are a way to keep federal taxes in your back yard literally and figuratively.
The states for the most part (especially those republican controlled) are fiscally responsible and work very hard to balance their budgets. But this economy all caused by federal meddling and unresponsiveness have wrecked those budgets that there is nothing left but deficits.
Get the EPA the hell away from NG/propane/ethanol conversion for automobiles.
The smart grid was a payoff to a campaign supporter and is a waste of money, doesn't apply to Texas for sure ( they do not connect to the national grid) and is a burden on the states public utility commissions who have managed utility prices and utility growth for well over 50 years. But this is another case of meddling by the federal government to correct mismanagement of the utility in certain states (Arizona utility company corruption comes to mind). And it will just cost me and Missouri money that we don't need to spend
Leave my utility company alone.
I do not want the states to duplicate the federal residential tax credits but only add a little tax credit for the NG/propane/ethanol conversions.The utility companies are offering or will offer rebates for electric heating to get customers off NG which they then will be able to sale in a free market as car fuel.
-
Comment by Thomas Dixon on June 5, 2009 at 9:49am
-
There is nothing we can discuss that will speed up our conversion from oil to alternatives. It will take time while we live in the here and now. Just because the day to day conversation on this subject seems to be waning it does not mean that progress is not taking place. There is only so much you can say today and once said what else is there left to say-?
The only real change that can take place on forums like this is by getting more people involved. The old folks here have said their fill and short of repeating themselves what else is there to say-?
-
Comment by david epps on June 5, 2009 at 8:56am
-
I have sent Energy plan for Missouri to my state reps.
The plan can be modified to fit any states unique set of energy requirements.
The states are begging for a solution to their deficits due to the economy.
Featured Action
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
You need to be a member of A new direction for the PP to add comments!