Even at $10 a barrel, oil can't match solar on cost

I honestly don't know what happened there.a reply to: SlapMonkey

a reply to: jrod

I figured you were talking hypotheticals about the price in your title.

We have an administration in the White House that is more than happy to throw money at alternative energy, even if it proves over and over to be a bad investment. A few years back, I could buy into your argument, but not really anymore. Sure, there are some major hurdles in the forms of Big Energy and all of its companies, but new technology can and will make it through if there is promise of it being much cleaner and cheaper.

But, we live in a nation (in the U.S., anyhow) where the federal government still bans hemp farming, so who really knows what the future holds...

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Congress in the U.S. was talking about raising the gas tax since the cost has gone down so much (which in their minds means that we can 'afford it'...nevermind if it's necessary). We have a federal fuel tax of about 18 cents, and my state has a state fuel tax of 46 cents. So, when my cost per gallon dipped into the $1.95 range, $0.64 of that was just taxes. that's 33% of the cost. It's ridiculous, especially because the money taken in these taxes are meant to go to the roads, but doesn't really appear to.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Wow, way to blame Obama for 'throwing money at alternative energies'.

Back in the 70's, President Jimmy Carter had a solar panel installed on the White House because he believed it was the right thing to do. When Reagan was elected, Nancy had it removed because she considered it unsightly, and their administration was in cahoots with Big Oil.

Do you know how powerful the oil lobbyist are?

They are the ones who drive the policies, the money that the Obama administration has spent on alternatives is a no where near the tax kick backs big oil receives.

Another important not in the energy debate is Lockheed Martin's announcement regarding fusion. We very well may be the generation that goes to fusion, that will change everything.

I will write this again: There is a reason why Warren Buffett has been dumping his oil stock.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Wow, way to blame Obama for 'throwing money at alternative energies'.

I didn't "blame" anyone for anything, I just used a fact to illustrate that I think the federal government should stay out of the energy-subsidy business altogether.

Back in the 70's, President Jimmy Carter had a solar panel installed on the White House because he believed it was the right thing to do. When Reagan was elected, Nancy had it removed because she considered it unsightly, and their administration was in cahoots with Big Oil.

Do you know how powerful the oil lobbyist are?

They are the ones who drive the policies, the money that the Obama administration has spent on alternatives is a no where near the tax kick backs big oil receives.

You can blame lobbyists all you want, but the root of the problem is our collection of spineless, greedy politicians. Lobbyists would mean diddly squat if we had any politicians who had a proverbial pair. Honestly, I probably would have removed the solar panel, too. Back then, the efficiency was below 10%, and the cost for the tech was extremely high. Quite honestly, the fact is that Carter wasted tax dollars putting one on the White House because the cost-to-efficiency ratio was ridiculous at the time.

But keep in mind, there are some pretty powerful green-energy/AGW lobbyists out there, too, and they can do a pretty good job going head-to-head with Big Oil in this administration.

Another important not in the energy debate is Lockheed Martin's announcement regarding fusion. We very well may be the generation that goes to fusion, that will change everything.


I will write this again: There is a reason why Warren Buffett has been dumping his oil stock.

Repeating that is unnecessary, but if it makes you feel better...

Nuclear fusion would be pretty damn cool, if it happens, but people are scared of nuclear power plants right now...and while I know the tech is completely different, they're going to have to go on a publicity blitzkrieg if they think that the general public will immediately embrace nuclear fusion as a safe energy source. Hell, people out there think that the Large Hadron Collider is going to create a black hole, or implode the universe--when people don't understand something, they get scared. It sucks, because that's a part of human nature that holds us back sometimes.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Repeating important information is vital in online forums because so much is lost due to the frequent cases of topic dilution and thread drift. Also the $10 a barrel is NOT hypothetical, it is the price oil needs to be to be competitive is a few spots around the world. The recent drop of oil prices in the US is partly because of the competition alternative energies are now bring to the table.

So I will reiterate about what a wrote about Buffett and his oil stock.Warren Buffett was one of the biggest shareholders in ExxonMobil. Not anymore.

a reply to: jrod

Right...or, it's because OPEC is trying to price out the rewards of setting up new oil industry here in the US so that it's no longer viable to chase new fracking or other fossil-fuel dreams. But that's possibly getting into conspiracy-theory territory, so I'll just leave that as a hypothetical and we can let this conversation peter out, if you'd like.

Best Regards.