Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 14:41:19

Global renewable capacity has just exceeded coal's capacity: 2006 GW of renewable capacity vs 1965 GW of coal capacity. However coal still significantly outpaces renewables in actual generation: 40% of global generation for coal vs 23% for renewables(renewables generate electricity for a smaller fraction of the day compared to coal). Solar capacity additions hit a new record last year of 71 GW. Wind added 51 GW and Hydro 30 GW.

Global coal capacity:
2016: 1965 GW

Global renewable energy capacity:
2007: 1070 GW
2016: 2006 GW

Global hydro installed capacity:
2007: 989 GW
2016: 1094 GW

Global non hydro renewable capacity:
2016: 912 GW

Global wind installed capacity:
2007: 74 GW
2016: 484 GW

Global solar installed capacity:
2007: 8 GW
2016: 298 GW
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4152
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 14:50:33

kublikhan wrote:Global renewable capacity has just exceeded coal's capacity: 2006 GW of renewable capacity vs 1965 GW of coal capacity. However coal still significantly outpaces renewables in actual generation: 40% of global generation for coal vs 23% for renewables(renewables generate electricity for a smaller fraction of the day compared to coal). Solar capacity additions hit a new record last year of 71 GW. Wind added 51 GW and Hydro 30 GW.

Global coal capacity:
2016: 1965 GW

Global renewable energy capacity:
2007: 1070 GW
2016: 2006 GW

Global hydro installed capacity:
2007: 989 GW
2016: 1094 GW

Global non hydro renewable capacity:
2016: 912 GW

Global wind installed capacity:
2007: 74 GW
2016: 484 GW

Global solar installed capacity:
2007: 8 GW
2016: 298 GW

That illustrates that we need to start comparing the different producers by their yearly production not their maximum hourly potential. Once you discount solar for the number of hours the sun shines and how low in the sky the sun is mid winter and how often the winds are calm or lower speed then optimum and coal and large dam hydro still are the kings and will be for years to come.
Hear are the EIA numbers on the issue. Iceland and Sweden's states are interesting as are France and Germany's.
https://www.iea.org/media/statistics/su ... ty/mes.pdf
Last edited by vtsnowedin on Fri 07 Apr 2017, 15:03:32, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8859
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 14:58:46

vtsnowedin wrote:That illustrates that we need to start comparing the different producers by their yearly production not their maximum hourly potential. Once you discount solar for the number of hours the sun shines and how low in the sky the sun is mid winter and how often the winds are calm or lower speed then optimum and coal and large dam hydro still are the kings and will be for years to come.
I do that too. Haven't done it for last year but here was my post from 2015(data is from 2012 - 2013):

Energy Infrastructure Progress Report
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4152
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 15:19:37

k - True. But while renewables make up a good % they haven't done much to decrease ff consumption. Like Texas: our big wind growth hasn't reduced our ff burning capacity but has allowed us to not increase it. And without wind growth it's guaranteed we would have built more NG and lignite burners.

IOW the GHG is still being pumped out.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 16:18:35

VT, thanks for the link. Looks like this only includes OECD nations though. So I added 2014 data to my earlier post on global generation:

World electricity sector generation TWh
source___________ 2012 2013 2014
renewable______ 4,830 5,070 5,420
non renewable 17,797 18,063 18,345
total_________ 22,627 23,133 23,765

World electricity sector increase from prior year TWh
source_______ 2013 2014
renewables____ 240 350
non renewables 266 282
total__________ 506 632

Rock - True the amount of ff reduction we have seen is small. Just looking at US electricity generation:

US electricity sector generation TWh
source 2007 2016
fossil fuel 2,992 2,657
renewables* 352 609
nuclear 806 805
total 4,157 4,079

* renewables does not include rooftop solar.

A similar trend holds if you look at all US ff consumption:

US FF energy consumption:
2007: 86 quads
2016: 79 quads

The reduction in ff consumption in other OECD nations was even smaller than in the US:

Total production for the year‐to‐date was 10,373.3 TWh. Comparing this to the same period last year shows that:
‐ Total production was higher by 90.6 TWh, or 0.9%.
‐ Combustible Fuels production reduced by 0.2%, a decrease of 13.0 TWh
‐ Geoth./Wind/Solar/Other production increased by 9.5%, or 75.6 TWh.
Monthly electric statistics

And the picture is even worse globally. Tiny reductions in ff consumption in OECD nations were not enough to offset growing consumption in the non OECD nations.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4152
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 22:50:36

k - Yep. As they say: problems can have solutions. But predicaments, local the future global energy dynamic, don't have solutions: just ineffective responses and worse responses
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 09 Apr 2017, 18:57:00

Reliance on heating oil is highest in the Northeast, where about 22% of households use oil for space heating, down from 27% five years ago as an increasing number of homes switch to using natural gas and electricity for space heating. Nationwide, 5% of households use heating oil.

Although pipeline transportation constraints have eased somewhat in recent years, they continue to pose a challenge to natural gas markets in the Northeast. Basis differentials (the difference between a natural gas price at a given location and the benchmark Henry Hub price) last winter in major gas demand centers in the Northeast were lower compared with the winter of 2014-15, as mild temperatures and some pipeline capacity additions in the Middle Atlantic region helped limit price spikes. This year, additional capacity will be available to deliver natural gas from the Marcellus region in Pennsylvania to New England with the expected November 2016 start-up of the Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) Project. This expected incremental pipeline capacity has helped lower expected prices for natural gas delivered to Boston during the peak winter months by about $1/MMbtu compared with expectations from a year ago. However, pipeline constraints still exist in the Northeast, particularly into the New England market, contributing to significant basis differentials between New England prices and Henry Hub futures prices. These constraints could contribute to day-to-day price volatility during periods of cold temperatures.
Winter Fuels Outlook
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4152
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 29 Apr 2017, 15:05:43

The irony is thick: while some environmental protestors want this pipeline replaced others demand that no new pipelines be built. I can't find the link but I think this is one of the existing border crossing oil pipelines that President Obama issued permits to expand capacity at the same he was denying the permit for Keystone XL. Notice none of the politicians want to talk about abandoning the pipeline: It also delivers about half the propane used to heat Michigan homes. Apparently their concern over leak potential is limited to only those positions that WOULD NOT get them run out of office. LOL.

Reuters - The growing protest movement against U.S. oil and gas pipelines has so far focused on stopping or delaying new construction, with some high-profile successes. Now, in Michigan, a broad coalition of opponents is entering a new frontier: Pushing to rip out and reroute an existing pipeline - Enbridge Inc.'s Line 5, which crosses the Straits of Mackinac. They fear the pipeline will leak into the Great Lakes. Those concerns - which are shared by two likely candidates for governor - also have far-reaching implications for energy firms and consumers.

Spanning 645 miles, Line 5 carries 540,000 barrels per day of light Canadian crude and refined products between Wisconsin and Ontario, making it a key link in Enbridge's network transporting western Canadian oil to eastern refineries. Moving the pipeline, built in 1953, would cost Enbridge $4.2 million per mile - or about $2.7 billion total.

Enbridge spokesman said that the line is structurally sound and constantly monitored, tested and inspected to prevent leaks. The firm plans to add 18 additional supports in the Straits this summer, he said. The unprecedented demands to move an existing pipeline present steep political and regulatory challenges, said Dirk Lever, an analyst with AltaCorp Capital in Calgary. "Move it? The question is where," he said. "And good luck with building a new pipeline."
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 29 Apr 2017, 17:18:34

Interesting bit on DECOMMISSIONING technology.

http://gcaptain.com/giant-pioneering-sp ... -platform/
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10268
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 05 May 2017, 21:53:13

At first when I read the title I figured it was just more RigZone bullsh*t exaggerating a small bump in the road. But then discovered there many tens of $BILLION truly shovel ready projects that are not pushing forward ASAP because of the NEW administration is not getting its act together in a timely manner. Essential not adding the needed appointees to get final authorizations. A hurdle candidate Trump would critisize President Obama for doing. From

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... t_Projects

Trump Delay Stalls $50 Billion of Energy Investment Projects

"Until President Trump fills key vacancies at an energy regulator, Nexus and other sprawling energy projects are in limbo, unable to secure permits to begin construction. By the time Midwesterners fire up their furnaces this fall, the $2 billion Nexus pipeline is supposed to be pumping natural gas to heat homes from frosty Ohio to frostier Ontario. But six months out, the 255-mile pipeline exists only on paper. Until President Donald Trump fills key vacancies at an energy regulator, Nexus and other sprawling energy projects are in limbo, unable to secure permits to begin construction. For Nexus developers DTE Energy Co. and Spectra Energy Partners LP, each week that passes threatens the project’s ability to meet winter demands.

Nexus is just part of at least $50 billion worth of ventures slowed or stalled while the agency that approves them, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, awaits presidential appointments. For the first time in FERC’s 40-year-history, the agency doesn’t have enough commissioners for a quorum to vote on project applications. At least a half-dozen pipelines valued at $12 billion face imminent delays, while projects valued at $38 billion are slogging through an approval process that’s slow in the best of times. An additional $25 billion of proposed developments just beginning the application process also could be slowed if the situation persists late into the year.

Post-Inauguration Bottleneck - It’s a bottleneck that can be traced to the White House in the hectic days following the inauguration. Trump inherited a commission with three Democrats and two Republican vacancies and decided to shake things up. The president took the chairmanship from Norman Bay, an Obama appointee, and gave it on a temporary basis to Cheryl LaFleur, considered by Republicans to be a friend of the industry.

In February, Bay resigned. That left the commission with just two members, LaFleur and Commissioner Colette Honorable, whose term ends in June -- one shy of the quorum needed to vote on projects. That meant no approvals for new gas pipelines. No decisions on contested utility mergers. No clearance for new liquid natural gas terminals.

Other regulatory agencies that lack enough staff to vote on issues include the Federal Trade Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Export-Import Bank.

Stalled energy projects big and small include the $1 billion, 114-mile PennEast Pipeline, designed to run from Pennsylvania to New Jersey, TransCanada Corp.’s $850 million WB Express, and Chesapeake Utilities Corp.’s $100 million Eastern Shore expansion project, which expected approval in the first half of the year. Pipeline delays could hit consumers directly by driving up prices for the fuel. “You could see ongoing spikes in prices, in particular New England,” said Michael Kay, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.

Formal nomination is only the beginning of what could be a months-long process. The candidates still have to be confirmed by the Senate after approval from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The chairman of that committee, Senator Lisa Murkowski, said Thursday she would clear time for confirmation hearings as soon as Trump announces nominees.

It’s a political process that’ll take awhile, said Martin Edwards, head of government affairs at the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. “How much time is really unknowable,” he said. Confirming the last commissioner to join the panel in 2014 took six months.

{Given the ultra adversarial mood in DC the process may take much longer then normal if the D's persist in their stalling tactics. But that would be a serious risk to them if we have a harsh winter and a lot of consumers freeze in the dark. LOL}
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 17 Dec 2017, 16:33:19

In the last 2 decades the number of alt fuel US buses went from less than 5% in 1996 to nearly half in 2015.

Year Percent of US public transit buses using alt fuels
1996 4%
2000 8%
2006 18%
2011 35%
2012 38%
2013 40%
2014 41%
2015 48%

2015 US bus breakdown:
diesel/gasoline: 51.9%
CNG/LNG/blends: 23.1%
Electric/Hybrid:17.3%
Biodiesel: 7.6%
Other: 0.2%

2016 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACT BOOK(page 25)

2016 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACT BOOK APPENDIX A: HISTORICAL TABLES (page 134)
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4152
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 02 Jan 2018, 17:49:22

2017 was a great year for the world of offshore wind power. Here’s a recap of what we saw, and a look at what’s ahead. One of the most significant points in the calendar came in September, when energy from offshore wind became cheaper to generate than energy from nuclear power stations. Even more impressive was the fact that this occurred so quickly. RenewableUK’s Hugh McNeal called the breakthrough astounding. “Record-breaking cost reductions like the ones achieved by offshore wind are unprecedented for large energy infrastructure.”

It’s thanks to the technological advances that have created bigger turbines and higher voltage cables, as well as the abilities of wind farms to be increasingly situated in deep water. Prices have merrily slid to 47 percent lower than they were just two and a half years ago, when the last competitive auction results came out.

This year, we also saw the world’s first floating wind energy project become operational—the 30 MW Hywind farm park offshore Peterhead in Aberdeenshire. This has been closely watched by the industry, which is keen to discover whether it’s possible for floating farms to scale up, and costs to come down, just as they have for farms that don’t float. This could be a game changer by meeting not only existing demand but also open up new markets in the U.S. and Japan. It was developed by Statoil, which is already working on its next large-scale project, though the final destination hasn’t yet been decided. The company is confident that floating wind farms will deliver the same benefits to costs as conventional wind farms have done in the recent past.

In October, New York Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hocul declared: “New York intends to be the preeminent global hub for the next generation of the wind industry. Offshore wind is essential to meeting New York’s ambitious energy goal and developing 2400 MW of offshore wind will generate thousands of jobs in our state.” There’s a good reason for the U.S.’s growing appreciation of offshore wind power: “I’m pretty shocked with all the cost reduction developments we’re seeing by the Danish, the Dutch, the Germans,” said Stephanie McClellan, a wind power expert at the University of Delaware. “Everything is moving in the right direction.” By reminding ourselves of the plan in place for three states (New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts) to develop farms with eight GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, it’s hard not to be impressed. And It’s not just limited to those states. As Cleantechnica reports, Offshore wind is also a hot topic in Maryland, California, and other coastal states. “You can feel the urgency to harness this new ocean energy resource coming from states and businesses competing to be first movers,” said Tom Kiernan, CEO of AWEA. “Unlocking America’s vast offshore wind potential will reliably deliver large amounts of clean power, grow jobs, and cement American energy dominance.”
The Winners Of 2017’s Renewable Revolution

The UK has halved its carbon emissions over the past five years.

UK Green energy records broken in 2017
- First 24-hour period without coal generated power
- Longest period without coal generation
- "Greenest summer" - more than half (52 per cent) of energy generated from low carbon sources
- Lowest amount of carbon produced by electricity production at any one moment
- Largest amount of energy produced from renewables at any one moment
- First time wind, nuclear, and solar produced more than gas and coal
- More electricity generated from solar energy than ever before at a single moment, producing a quarter of Britain's energy supply
- Highest percentage of solar produced relative to national demand
- Most wind power ever produced in a single day
- Most offshore wind power produced in a single moment
- Most electricity produced from all wind generation at any moment
- Most electricity produced from hydropower at any one moment
That all adds up to a record breaking 2017
UK Smashes 13 Clean Energy Records In 2017

The UK’s carbon dioxide emissions have fallen to their lowest level since the 19th century as coal use continues to plummet. Carbon emissions in 2016 were about 381m tonnes, putting the UK’s carbon pollution at its lowest level since 1894. Coal use has fallen by 74% in just a decade. The government has pledged that all the UK’s coal-fired power stations will be closed by 2025.
UK carbon emissions drop to lowest level since 19th century, study finds
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4152
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 02 Jan 2018, 19:11:11

Trump is not going to do a damn thing about America's deteriorating infrastructure. The last 10 presidents couldn't or wouldn't because America's business is shopping malls and mcmansions. New shiny homes and no life. We don't have the will to tackle real projects anymore.

Some would say we don't need infrastructure . . . when we have AI, HyperLoopy and Trips to Mars.
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27072
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 02 Jan 2018, 19:39:07

pstarr wrote:Trump is not going to do a damn thing about America's deteriorating infrastructure. The last 10 presidents couldn't or wouldn't because America's business is shopping malls and mcmansions. New shiny homes and no life. We don't have the will to tackle real projects anymore.

Some would say we don't need infrastructure . . . when we have AI, HyperLoopy and Trips to Mars.

At this point Trump can't do much of anything. What it takes to get something done is all the 51 GOP Senators plus 17 Democratic Senators to agree that it is good for the country and for their reelection chances. He will take credit for anything that does pass but the white house will have had little or nothing to do with the actual work of coming up with passable bills.
I'd like to see a ten cent increase in the gas tax with all the money spent on base courses, pavement, rebar and concrete etc. with all the planning engineering and inspection paid for by the states. The engineering and permitting portion of infrastructure projects has ballooned all out of proportion over the last three decades because the feds were covering the cost. Let the states pay that out of their own pocket and whole layers of nonsense will get stripped away.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8859
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 02 Jan 2018, 19:56:16

vt, I too believed in the gas tax. It seemed to have much going for it; would reduce greenhouse gases and sulfur dioxide, encourage and invest in efficient mass transit, repair roads, reduce costly auto repairs.

i also used to believe in the tooth fairy. Now I don't. We don't have the discretion to drive less, nor the time to drive slowly. And we need big cars because they are safer, can handle bad winters, and they carry stuff . . . children, dogs, luggage, tools and groceries. We live in suburbia and depend on cars . . . unlike any other nation.

But given that . . . my blood still boils when i see shiny new pickups without any evidence of having carried a tool or piece of lumber. I don't like big SUV's no matter how big the family. It is such a tragic waste :cry:
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27072
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 02 Jan 2018, 20:12:35

We built and moved into suburbia because we could and gas was cheap. When gas gets expensive enough we (or more precisely you) will move back to cities or to within walking distance of our jobs. I live in the woods and have no job to commute to any longer so am fine where I am. Suburbia will fade away or get repurposed by moving production out to the burbs perhaps into old mall buildings with some of the slip stores converted to housing.
People are much more adaptable then you imagine.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8859
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 03 Jan 2018, 01:08:13

vtsnowedin wrote:At this point Trump can't do much of anything. What it takes to get something done is all the 51 GOP Senators plus 17 Democratic Senators to agree that it is good for the country and for their reelection chances. He will take credit for anything that does pass but the white house will have had little or nothing to do with the actual work of coming up with passable bills.

On the other side of the coin though (via several stories I've seen on the subject on the NYT), the dems tend not to WANT infrastructure done under Trump, because if it succeeds, they know he will take credit for it, and they are 100% against that. Oh, and once he was elected, they suddenly didn't like paying for infrastructure, unlike how during Obama's tenure, they were saying big infrasture projects needed to be done, and soon.

Hell of a way to run a railroad.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5277
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 03 Jan 2018, 01:15:59

pstarr wrote: And we need big cars because they are safer, can handle bad winters, and they carry stuff . . . children, dogs, luggage, tools and groceries.

We need safe and efficient cars. Large families need big cars. Not so much for everyone else, unless they truly need a large vehicle to do their work.
But given that . . . my blood still boils when i see shiny new pickups without any evidence of having carried a tool or piece of lumber. I don't like big SUV's no matter how big the family. It is such a tragic waste :cry:

As you pointed out, a large gasoline tax (and diesel too) would be good. A MUCH larger one would be a good incentive for people not to drive a far less efficient vehicle than they need.

With the current system and where/why the money flows for oil and cars, industry will fight that (to preserve profits) even harder than individuals who don't want to pay for what they truly consume (because lifestyle trumps common sense).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5277
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 03 Jan 2018, 13:17:44

Outcast - "...industry will fight that (to preserve profits) even harder than individuals..." And that's where you and I have agree to disagree. Let's see the Dems in Congress propose a $0.50 increase in motor fuel taxes before the midterm election. Or the Dem nominee for the next presidential do so. Or the Dems in Congress (which they'll likely control) do so after a Dem POTUS is likely elected in 2020. If I ran a Big Oil I wouldn't piss away a dollar on lobbyists trying to keep fuel taxes down. Don't need them...have the voters doing the job. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11013
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 03 Jan 2018, 13:58:44

ROCKMAN wrote:Outcast - "...industry will fight that (to preserve profits) even harder than individuals..." And that's where you and I have agree to disagree. Let's see the Dems in Congress propose a $0.50 increase in motor fuel taxes before the midterm election. Or the Dem nominee for the next presidential do so. Or the Dems in Congress (which they'll likely control) do so after a Dem POTUS is likely elected in 2020. If I ran a Big Oil I wouldn't piss away a dollar on lobbyists trying to keep fuel taxes down. Don't need them...have the voters doing the job. LOL.
Regardless of who proposes it a gas tax increase won't be 50 cents all at once. More like a nickle rise every six months or a year to spread the impact around and not cause a backlash. But slow or fast it will rest on what they do with the money. Fix a lot of stuff that needs fixing efficiently and they will be heroes. Blow it on bridges to nowhere named after Senators and there will be a revolt.
The Dems probably will control at least one house in Congress after 2018 but I think the odds are even on the presidency for 2020. First off I don't think Trump can win in Iowa and New Hampshire this time around so the Republican nominee will be a new younger face. If the Dems put up one of their geriatric has-beens which they now have leading in their polls they will lose.
There is plenty of time between now and 2020 election day for several people to move to the front and either survive all the way to the top or get shot down in flames first time out of the gate.
But I'll tell you this. The voters on both sides will be taking a much harder look at who they vote for before they cast a vote for them.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8859
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests