Stance on Alternative Energies

[Brendan Wenzel]

If Dr. Paul got rid of energy subsidies would that include subsidies for alternatives? Although if all subsidies were eliminated I could see how alternative energy sources could be boosted by the huge increase to in the prices of fossil fuels. Thanks for your responses.

[axiomata]

By your sig, and your one post, I can see that this is an important issue for you. I was considering not responding since it is typically not regarded at good forum etiquette to register and then make a post with an advertisement in your sig but I'll humor you.

The key with Ron Paul is that he would eliminate all subsidies. Most people when they think of subsidies think of research investments, tax credits to consumers etc., but really it is a lot bigger than just that. If would not be reasonable to stop subsidies on the renewable energies without stopping subsidies on the polluting energy sources.

Most of our subsidies to oil companies however are not direct like they are for renewable energy sources. It is a subsidy when we use taxpayer money to pay for our military to go into the Mideast to ensure low prices on oil reserves. It is a subsidy when we pay Saudis to ensure that they keep selling us their oil.

I truly do not know if alternative energy sources would be able to compete with oil and coal on a perfectly open market right now. Personally, I think a lot of people are willing to pay higher energy prices in order to protect our environment, and decrease the power that Mideast states have over us.

Of all the renewable, personally I'm betting on distributed solar power augmenting nuclear, and some fossil fuel plants. I worked on http://www.solardecathlon.uiuc.edu/ at my university (the actual competition is going on now). But by nature, I am not a tree-hugger, and I am quite frugal and research every purchase I make. So when I am seriously consider investing almost $15,000 to retrofit my first major home purchase with solar panels I'd like to think that others would too.

But it is near impossible to make an informed decision so long as subsidies distort true market prices. Ron Paul would remove those distortions. And I think if instead of facing $3/gal gas, people saw $6/gal gas then that $7/"gal" overnight plug-in juiced by energy collected from solar panels during the day won't look all that bad, especially with the knowledge that you are saving the environment.

[reinhard]

I agree more and more with Ron Paul and the free market.
http://ronpaulexpo.com/would_smaller_government_be_able_solve_environment al_issues

[TheIndependent]

If Dr. Paul got rid of energy subsidies would that include subsidies for alternatives? Although if all subsidies were eliminated I could see how alternative energy sources could be boosted by the huge increase to in the prices of fossil fuels. Thanks for your responses.

Let me put it this way... If subsidies to the major oil corps were eliminated, they'd have no choice. All subsidies for all energy types would be eliminated. No lobbying Congress = no choice but to get their gains elsewhere, and that means alternative energy. However, realize that most research is done privately at this time sans subsidies. (Part of that is because the oil companies have massive pull.)

I'm personally all for off-the-grid options, including solar, hydroelectric, and wind energies for personal utility. I'd love nothing more than to depend on renewable earth-based options for my energy and throw off the energy companies that charge me every month! It only makes sense to start folding in "personal, off-the-grid" utility construction as part of a home purchase price, in my opinion. That way, you might pay more upfront, but in the long run enjoy considerable savings.

And if I produce enough for the 'grid' to pay ME for my production, all the better. Preferably, tax-free. (Of course, a Ron Paul administration can help on that last part!)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If Dr. Paul got rid of energy subsidies would that include subsidies for alternatives? Although if all subsidies were eliminated I could see how alternative energy sources could be boosted by the huge increase to in the prices of fossil fuels. Thanks for your responses.

all subsidies...gone.

Why artificially control the market? Let a free market decide.

[Captain Shays]

Andrew Napilatano said that Ron Paul is a clone of Thomas Jefferson. Well Thomas Jefferson like most of the founding fathers, were strong believers in the philosophy of decentralization. Centralized energy production and centralized government controls over energy production are the antithesis to decentralization.
In order to become energy independent, which we can do right now with present day technologies, decentralizeion is key. We need to produce energy in millions of different locations, specifically, at the point us use or onsite.

The guys who answered you before me touched on the hidden externalities such as military expenses involved in bringing oil to our shores. Those costs are huge and hidden behind our income tax. We pay, right now, twice for the same energy; once at the gas pump, and again through our income tax; once through our electric bill and again through our income tax.
These subsidies that many of our friends in the renewable resource technology fields often advocate for, usually wind up in the pockets of huge multi-national oil companies anyway. We almost half expect it, and half hope that they, having so much money will invest in renewable resource technologies. But its corporate welfare, whether you call it a research and development grant, a tax subsidy or a partnership subsidy.
During the Clinton administration those corporate welfare mechanisms amounted to over $91 Billion in 8 years, just to the fossil fuel, the nuclear industry, and the auto manufacturers alone.
During those same 8 years we spent an average of $50 BILLION per year in maintaining military activity ie bases, shipping lanes, intelligence etc..
By eliminating those subsidies, those costs would have to be factored intot he final cost of the product and with the elimination of the income tax or at least the elimination of tax subsidies, the cots of their products would be reflected at the gas pump and it would be the real price not some obsfucated bullshit.
Mt guess is that we're really paying around $5.50 for a gallon of gas right now if you factor in the hidden expernalities.
So when you pull up to a gas pump and see $5.50 or $6.00 for a gallon the next time you buy a car, you'll by choice purchase the most efficient one you can find.
The Democrats know this, but they don't want to change anything except to increase the gas tax to change your bahavior or take from someone else to pay for your solar panels.

If these government guys really believe in renewable resource technologies, they should stop subsidizing EVERY form of technology right now.

But here is another subsidy that we haven't mentioned. ALL the government's energy is supplied by nuclear power plants, hydro electric, gas, coal, etc. Very little of the government's energy is supplied with renewables or domestically produced and all of it centralized.

The answer is to force the governemnt to make purchases of solar and wind and plug-in hybrids for their own uses. By doing this, they will become decentralized but best of all. Simply by making a purchase of something that they need already, their huge buying power, would create a renewable energy market. The single largest market in the country since the govenrment is the single largest energy consumer.
By increasing production to meet the government's demand, the costs will come down and in a free market environment, you and I won't need a subsidy or a tax break to encourage us to buy solar panels.

I live here in New Jersey.I install solar panels and wind turbines here for a living. At one point we had THE most progressive grants and subsidy program in the entire coutnry yet we still are not closer to a respectably amount of solar being produced compared to the total energy production. They installed huge mega watt scale wind turbines near Atlantic City but its still centralized. They won't allow a private homeowner to put a turbine on his own property right next to the ocean where he could eliminate his electric bill.


This is my plan and if you like it please get in touch with me because I need help promoting this concept.

There are millions of streetlights traffic signals, schools, military bases, govenrment office buildings that right now with present technology could recieve a significantr amount of their energy from solar or wind and if they would just do that, it would imply that we are telling our government what to do, instead of them trying to contol us through taxation, welfare or arm twisting.

[Hope]

The thing, alternative energy subsidies don't work. The gov't had them for years and no one caught onto hybrids and the like. It has only been in the past four years or so that we're seeing people really invest in alternative energy. And it hasn't been because of the gov't. The gov't cannot make people "do the right thing," as it were. Only the market can.

[johngr]

Easy. None of gov't agents' GD business.

[Knightskye]

Ron Paul's stated repeatedly that he likes the free market. There's a video where he talks about biofuels and alternative energy. I think it's "Conversation with a Candidate", or something like that, and you can watch it on YouTube.

The government's pumping money into ethanol research and production. We don't want the price to be artificially low. It's not the truth, and it's a waste of money, which will lead us further into debt. If the "big evil automakers" don't make a good car than runs on renewable sources, a company can start up that will. It's called "free enterprise," one of the great things about our country. And if Detroit doesn't get their act together, who cares? Tesla's rolling out the Roadster early next year! Let the free market take care of business.

[golfboy]

just get rid of the oil company thugs terrorizing free energy innovators, and they will save the day.

trust me on this. ;)

[jmdrake]

How about this? End the tax on biofuels? Right now if you make your own biodiesal or ethanol you are technically required to report this to the state and federal government and turn in the required excise taxes. Almost NOBODY ever does this, but those that get caught are stuck with HUGE penalties. At the federal level a president Paul couldn't end the state taxes, but he could scrap the federal ones. Since he's for tax breaks anyway.... And this wouldn't be a big dent in the budget if it only applied to people who made their own fuel.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Son of Freedom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM

A privately funded Manhattan Project might be in order. I'm not sure how much energy is required at this point to hit the salt water with radio waves, but nobody knew this would happen up until this year.

This could be a godsend. Worth dumping a ton of money into to see if progress can be made in my opinion.

[jmdrake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR6UKFM

A privately funded Manhattan Project might be in order. I'm not sure how much energy is required at this point to hit the salt water with radio waves, but nobody knew this would happen up until this year.

This could be a godsend. Worth dumping a ton of money into to see if progress can be made in my opinion.

Interesting. The big question is how much energy is required from the radio waves for the amount of work done. But it's certainly worth investigating. (Not sure if I'd go for "dumping a ton of money"). There are other alternative technologies that have been around longer which seem promising. These include "bingofuel" (produced from carbon rods creating an arc plasma in distilled water) and improved cold fusion (produced from tunsten and steel plasma in water and potassium carbonate).

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/

Regards,

John M. Drake

[chipvogel]

This is the alternative energy that has me excited

but if Governor Schwarzenegger starts talking about funding for skynet its time to start worring

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/nextnews7.24b.html

[KnightOfTheOldRepublic76]

I can say that as a 24 year old soon to be married man, I would love to see steps taken to get us off foreign oil. As a part of foreign policy I think it would be prudent that if we get out of the Middle East militarily and such that a key point of that would be getting us off the "Black Crack" that is Middle Eastern oil. Not to mention these Arab nations using it as a stick to beat us with when we dont go along with them.

What I'm keen on hearing about is Bio-desiel and Ethanol. I understand that (not sure of the price) cars and trucks that dont contain diesel engines can be fixed to run off of diesel, and as such can be run off of bio-desiel............And ethanol which is a grain based fuel is mixed with one tenth of a percent of gasoline to help lubricate the engine its being run in.

I think bio-desiel seems to me to be the best option, since it essential comes from used cooking oils or fresh cooking oil for that. As a matter of fact, although the process I understand is dangerous, you can even make your own bio-desiel at little or no cost since most fastfood restaraunts and such are looking to get rid of their used cooking oil. I heard that these type of produce based alternative fuels tend to drive up the cost of produce, is that correct? It is an interesting subject that I eventually would love to look into and eventually avail myself of. By the way, I was jokingly thinking recently that when it comes to ethanol, maybe we should stop investing in Arab oil, and start investing and importing Russian vodka for the purpose of making ethanol.......I thought that joking of course, but who knows, it might work, thats why Im here to engage in debate and find out.

[gworrel]

I can say that as a 24 year old soon to be married man, I would love to see steps taken to get us off foreign oil. As a part of foreign policy I think it would be prudent that if we get out of the Middle East militarily and such that a key point of that would be getting us off the "Black Crack" that is Middle Eastern oil. Not to mention these Arab nations using it as a stick to beat us with when we dont go along with them.


I agree that we should get out of the Middle East militarily. I disagree with your characterizations of oil as "black crack". I disagree that "steps should be taken to get us off foreign oil."

Free trade is a good thing. The demonization of Middle Eastern oil producing nations is one the reasons that we are over there fighting and it is part of the subtle propaganda that is used to support the war.

It reminds me of the claims that were being made a while back that driving an SUV means you support terrorists. That makes as much sense as saying that keeping your money in a bank means that you support bank robbers.

The vast majority of people in the Middle East are decent law abiding people. The business of selling oil is no different than the business of selling cars or washing machines. It is not an evil business. The people who are doing it are not evil.

There is no question that subsidies for oil businesses and all businesses should be ended. The same goes for ethanol subsidies. Ron Paul would support both positions.

The idea that we are dependent on foreign oil is no doubt true, but the same could be said of a thousand different items. The countries in the Middle East cannot hold us hostage to oil unless they choose to destroy their own economies as well. It would do us no harm if a country in the Middle East decided to stop selling us oil unless they stopped selling oil to everyone. Oil is a world commodity and oil sold anywhere affects the price everywhere.

For interesting reading on free market economics take a look at www.cafehayek.com. Thanks.

[KnightOfTheOldRepublic76]

I agree that we should get out of the Middle East militarily. I disagree with your characterizations of oil as "black crack". I disagree that "steps should be taken to get us off foreign oil."

Free trade is a good thing. The demonization of Middle Eastern oil producing nations is one the reasons that we are over there fighting and it is part of the subtle propaganda that is used to support the war.

It reminds me of the claims that were being made a while back that driving an SUV means you support terrorists. That makes as much sense as saying that keeping your money in a bank means that you support bank robbers.

The vast majority of people in the Middle East are decent law abiding people. The business of selling oil is no different than the business of selling cars or washing machines. It is not an evil business. The people who are doing it are not evil.

There is no question that subsidies for oil businesses and all businesses should be ended. The same goes for ethanol subsidies. Ron Paul would support both positions.

The idea that we are dependent on foreign oil is no doubt true, but the same could be said of a thousand different items. The countries in the Middle East cannot hold us hostage to oil unless they choose to destroy their own economies as well. It would do us no harm if a country in the Middle East decided to stop selling us oil unless they stopped selling oil to everyone. Oil is a world commodity and oil sold anywhere affects the price everywhere.

For interesting reading on free market economics take a look at www.cafehayek.com. Thanks.



I will have to give that link a reading over some other time.........I admit my understanding of free-market economics is pretty much non-existent other than a basic understanding of simple rhetoric. I think you may in fact be right, but as of now I dont know so I do need to continue and read up on Ron Paul and the Free-market form of economics.


I appreciate the post........I guess thats why we all are here, to aid one another in understanding areas of Ron Paul's position(s) that we don't.


Thanks once again.


KOTOR