NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
Thread started by trickmilla at 12.18.07 - 7:34 pm
Congress approved a 40 percent hike in fuel economy standards today, 32 years after the first standards were signed into law. The energy bill also provides energy efficiency guidelines for households and aims to increase the production of biofuels. President Bush is expected to sign the bill into law as early as Wednesday.
The new energy bill calls for cars and trucks to average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. According to an analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the new miles-per-gallon efficiency of entire fleets of new passenger cars and light trucks — called the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards — will save more than 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2020 and close to 2 million barrels per day by 2025. Democrats said the efficiency standards could amount to annual fuel savings of $700 to $1,000 per household. The new standards mark the first time sport utility vehicles, vans and pickup trucks have been included in the CAFE standards.
The bill will also give a boost to biofuels by requiring a fivefold increase in ethanol production over the next 15 years. Although the focus will initially be on corn ethanol, by 2022, 21 billion gallons of the 36 billion gallons of biofuels required each year will be from non-corn sources, with an emphasis on cellulosic ethanol, which comes from wood chips, fast-growing trees, corn stalks and grasses. However, the technology is not yet developed to mass produce cellulosic ethanol....
There's also this: House passes domestic spending bill - The bill also includes a noncontroversial provision repealing the 1985 law banning the use of federal funds to build a tunnel to extend Los Angeles' subway to the city's Westside.
It failed to include the federal government's tax credit for wind power. If it doesn't get passed by the first quarter next year, the industry will grind to a halt as it has in past years when the Congress did the same thing.
This was just a basic item that should have been included, nevermind the more progressive items like a national green energy mandate (Renewable Electricity Standard).
All the stuff for biofuels is crap. Just pandering to farm states for an inefficient technology, padding ethanol investor's portfolios, while increasing the cost of food for everyone in the US.
The new mileage standards are something, but they're still far below what Europe and even China have for standards and they will take forever to make any real changes.
Congressional Republicans are idiots and Democrats are spineless.
There is tons of giveaways to corps and big business in this energy bill no doubt! And and I'm sure, little or nothing for bikes.
I was pretty astounded that it has been 35 years since the auto industry has been forced to improve exonomy standards that is actually what caught my attention. I'd like to read a comprehensive critique of the bill from and envirmental perspective. I am sure it is going to be ugly.
The federal gvmt has passed provisions in the past that stipulate that utilities MUST obtain a certain % of their power generation from Wind Power. Sure its not much as of now but its a start. Also as far as tax credits go, all of the people who own land and give non exclusive easements to the wind companies to erect and operate wind farms get paid A LOT of money from the production thereof. So tax credits go out of the door cause good ole Unlce Sam needs his share of revenues to spend on needless shit. But the incentive to do so isnt the actual tax credits (cause those numbers end up minute and ppl who are smart and business savvy can circumvent them anyway) because landowners get handsomely compensated. The challenge is to erect wind farms that are cost effective to be efficient to generate power, Sections of land are required that have a constant wind flow of 14 to 16 mph. Few places in the US meet this criteria.
Wait. 2022? Sylvia Brown said the world will end before that. The end is also marked on my giant stone Aztec Calendar that I keep locked in my basement.
Those bastards ... always trying to take the easy way out.
Maybe the rapture will come first and take a bunch of hummer drivers up to the pearly gates so we can have some peace and quiet aroud here for a minute b4 Quetzaquotal decides to return and destroy us all.
Dude...jchungerford, with all due respect you don't know what you're talking about. It's cocky but I'm gonna pull rank on you here. I'm the US editor for Windpower Monthly, the industry's leading trade publication. I know my shit. That's why I'm fired up about this.
Some corrections:
The federal government has NEVER passed a provision that made it into law requiring utilities to use wind and other renewables. It's passed numerous times in both the house and Senate but never been reconciled into a final bill. Only states (around 26 now) have their own self-imposed versions. Those are a good start.
You're so far off on the tax credit talk, I don't even know where to start. The wind industry is driven by tax credits and survives off tax credits. It's called the Production Tax Creit (PTC). It covers between 1/3 and 1/2 the cost of building a project. It provides about 2 cents tax credit write-off per kWh generated by a wind plant.
But you have to have a tax liability, so you have to be a big company. That's why big companies become equity partners. Without the PTC, the industry won't build because they would rather wait and build once the credit reactivated. But this means the industry goes through difficult "boom and bust" cycles.
Sure, landowners do just fine; between $3k - $5k per turbine per year put on their property. But the industry won't put up any turbines in a year in which the PTC is not available.
There's plenty of places in the US where it's efficient to generate with wind. In many places, it's on par with fossil fuels and even cheaper.
If you or anyone wants more info, I'm jb@windpower-monthly.com
I just want to make sure that all info is correct on this forum hence my reply.
Well I must say that I am not that for off being that i am 3rd gen energy industry. I have dealt and continue to deal with most of the majors (75% O&G, 20% Wind, 5% Hydro) and am probably privy to in-house information that doesnt get reported to your org.
The point I was trying to make was that the fed gvmt DOES subsidize the various industries within the energy sector (hence the PTC for wind) and to do so they have to have passed a provision/bill that will allow them to do so in the past. I mis typed and wrote that the Fed passed a requisition bill which is incorrect as i wanted to write some US States. My mind runs faster than i can type sometimes. Thank you for the correction for everyone. Its a shame however that Wind only attributes to 1% of the total and thats probably b/c only 38.3M was alloted for Wind R&D for FY 06 as an example as compared to 580M for fossil fuels. State requisition laws are helping as it is a start.
About the tax credit issue, I thought you were speaking as someone without industry knowledge who mistakenly was trying to point out that landowners get tax credits (without being partners) which is ludicrous. I misunderstood you and just want to have that clarified.
But to say that i dont know what i am talking about is completely asinine. I deal with these projects state to state for many of the big companies like BP/Outland/Aera/PXP/Western/Chesapeake/ChevronTx/ etc etc. and am involved within many of the national organizations like AAPL and AWEA and their many regional associations. Not to take anything fro what you do but while you may write about the wind industry, my experience covers much more than that across the whole energy sector as I am one of the ppl on the ground dealing with everything from project planning (private and public) thru all phases of development to profitability management.
Now I can concede that you may know a bit more than me when it comes to talking about wind power (as i only dedicate about 20% of my time to it), but you have to to understand I also deal with the other 99% of the energy sector and also the transferable issues that are relevant across all industries. Truth is we probably could learn a bit from each other.
jchungerford -- Sorry to suggest you didn't know what you're talking about. No offense intended. Sounds like you do know more than I thought. It just didn't show up all that well in your first post. But after your clarification, sounds like we're getting closer to the same page.
Yes, we probably could learn a thing or two from each other. I'm curious what you do for work and how you interact with the wind industry. Feel free to email if you'd like (jb@windpower-monthly.com).
Plus, we're officially geeking out in this thread!! ;-)
Please geek away!
I'm sure many of will find your observations on our new energy bill interesting.
Like said earlier, it was the raising CAFE standards (however little and however late) that got my attention about this. But the more I hear about it the more it seems to be a corperate/political circle jerk or daisy chain or whatever the apropriate group sex medaphor would be for this typical transfer of more weath and more power to the wealthy and powerful, while pretending to do something that looks remotely like the "will of the people".
the new energy bill trumps California's ability to set stricter emissions and fuel economy standards - meaning, we are not allowed to have BETTER requirements.
sorry, i don't think it's the energy bill itself that prohobits states from enacting their own tougher standards, but rather the EPA under the Bush administration, aka, the circle of monkeys running our country.
What about the weather?
http://www.midnightridazz.com/forums.php?topicId=1714&pgnum=1
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
ZZZzzzzzzzzz
ZZZZZZZZZzzz
zzzzzzzz
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Here let me help you out, cause I know what's next.
Right you are trekkie.
Jeezus! when the Terminator is the last voice of envronmental sanity you know we are fucked. Can't he just put his red eye back in and pop a few caps into douch from the EPA?
uh er ... sorry FBI ... what I ment to say was "can he just uh ... fix the ice caps ... the um polar ice caps".
Anyway, to hear the dude from Bush's EPA talking out the side of his ass saying:
"We need one set of rules that covers everybody"
Kinda made me sick...what a bunch of BS.
What he really ment to say was:
"there is no way in hell we are going to let you hippies on the west coast set a higher standand for carbon emissions and show the the world how easy it is and make the Bush EPA look bad for not doing more. We'd rather drown in polar melt off first."
And to think these are the same right-wing jackasses that have been screaming "STATES RIGHTS" for the last 50 years.
Maybe the governator should do the right thing and sue the feds for infringement of its states rights granted by our great constitution. i wonder if that is plausible and what could be gained from it.
I think the Govenator is on the case.
We'll se what happens.
The Fed is allowed to regulate the states on matters of intersate commerce. But the EPA has and is allowed to make exceptions for individual states to have stronger environmental protections than the Fed. We'll have to see how it plays out.
Realistacally I don't see anything good happening on this until after Nov. 08.
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
Dude...jchungerford, with all due respect you don't know what you're talking about. It's cocky but I'm gonna pull rank on you here. I'm the US editor for Windpower Monthly, the industry's leading trade publication. I know my shit. That's why I'm fired up about this.
What about the weather?