Issue: Energy: How is Ron Paul as prez going to deal w/energy?

[Dave Wood]

Having friends that work for Exxon/Mobil, I do believe that we are headed in to a very uncertain time in our history regarding energy. Oil, natural gas, copper oar, uranium, and other elements/fuels are either in declining production or are very near that point. Does anyone know what the plan is if you abolish the department of energy and back off of this militant usurpation of other countries resources, how do we continue life here if there is no central govt. agency to keep tabs on the quick changing energy scene. I wasnt really aware until last night that there are real problems on the horizon and they are approaching quickly. I was trying to talk RP to my oil friends and this was the response I got. ????? Anyone know the answer to that one?

[DjLoTi]

Honestly, with the advancement of technology, we should be fine. Unfortunately, the government gives the oil companies all the breaks (subsides) which prevents aggressive development in other markets. Solar panel technology will solve our problems forever. You might doubt me, but trust me on this.

Water is also running out. That is also a problem. We'll also have technology to deal with that, but the government needs to stop encouraging dead technology (OIL) and let the people invest in real solutions (SOLAR).

The problem is solar panels last for 100 years. That's 100 years of energy. No one is making money off that, except of course for the initial buy and the installation.

Solar power means we will have unlimited, unmetered energy. That also means this big huge oil companies will go out of business. These same companies also posses lots of power, and the government is influenced by this power and therefore rewards them with subsides. Because of that, it tilts the market in favor of the oil companies and discourages the evolution of technology.

This presidential race isn't only revolutionary. It's also evolutionary.

[Gee]

There is a good amount of oil off the coast of Florida and in Alaska we aren't using because of federal government interference. So that could be used, at least in the short run.

I haven't heard him say anything about it, but I'd imagine he would open up ethanol trade with Brazil, where they have sugar cane ethanol (vastly more efficient than corn). He's definitely against corn ethanol subsidies.

I know we aren't anywhere near "peak coal", and I think we've got some good technologies that make coal pretty green.

I don't really think we'll have a problem. Gas prices today really aren't all that high when adjusted for inflation, certainly not as high as they've been at certain times. As supply decreases the price will go up, and more alternatives will appear. We've already got an experimental ethanol plant being opened up using genetically engineered e. coli to convert biomass to ethanol. And then there is Nanosolar, an impressive alternative. The market process has been channeling funds into alternative energy sources for a while, and many things are under development which the politicians don't talk about. They only rant about corn ethanol because it wins them the Iowa caucus.

The most important thing is to stop using military muscle to try and secure lucrative oil deals, keeping the price of oil artificially low. If oil is allowed to raise in price like it should, the market can work and alternatives can be developed. If its kept low via any means of price-setting, you'll get shortages and a painful correction when the artificial prices are removed.

[Dave Wood]

Interesting,

never even thought about drinking water. It seems like we are way behind on this stuff. How do you break the oil co. grip on technology usage? This seems to be very dangerous policy. From what the guys told me last night, we could be facing large problems in as early as 5 years, doesnt sound like a lot of time??

[Gee]

To estimate the price of oil in 5 years, the best predictor would be an oil futures market. If anyone has a link to one, please post it.

[DjLoTi]

We can hit our peak on oil anytime from now up until 25 years. We have more oil in America then the entire middle east combined (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, and more).

Water is estimated to have 50-75 years left. That's when things get really dangerous. Many, many people will die. Many countries will wage war. It will be madness.

The technology of solar is already evolving, and is close to economic efficacy. However, people don't continually make money. We need (as humans) to embrace our fellow man and technology, and stop being so greedy. Otherwise, as a human species, we will not survive.

I also have the inside info on an absolutely revolutionary phenomenon. Humans mathematical system does not coincide with the math used by nature. I know the secret that hasn't been known to humans since the Egyptians built the pyramids.

Technology is already rising at an exponential rate, and has been doing so for the past decade. The real question is if companies will agree to stop making so much money for technology that is outdated. If technology is 100% embraced by humans, it would cost pennies to drink water, energize your home and your car, and make phone calls around the world.

[Trance Dance Master]

To estimate the price of oil in 5 years, the best predictor would be an oil futures market. If anyone has a link to one, please post it.

Barchart.com is the best place to get stock and commodity price quotes.

http://charts3.barchart.com/chart.as...K&org=stk&fix=

[DeadheadForPaul]

The government's support of oil companies (through an aggressive foreign policy as well as corporate subsidies) undermines our ability to advance new technologies which could free us of our need to be involved in the Middle East

First, we could drill in ANWAR to get oil there, as well as many other places

Second, nuclear power seems to be promising

Third, alternative energies provide hope as well

Fourth, we could check out ethanol and other things that other nations have used.

Fifth, if I were personally a candidate, I would call for no taxes on hybrid cars to encourage buying them, though that might be favoritism...My parents just got a hybrid and they use FAR less gas than they used to. I'm planning on getting one when I get a new car

I personally think that the U.S. government needs to make sure that we have access to some sort of fuel/energy because our economy would collapse without it. Obviously Dr. Paul wants to get rid of the department of energy, so he would leave it in the hands of private enterprise. I'd like to hear more about his thoughts on this topic

[jj111]

The free market will determine the proper pricing of each source of energy. The higher the price one solution is, the more incentive people will have to find another solution. The free market brings about the most efficiency and abundance.

Abolish the Department of Energy and let the free market work its magic.

[DjLoTi]

Second, nuclear power seems to be promising

Fourth, we could check out ethanol and other things that other nations have used.

Fifth, if I were personally a candidate, I would call for no taxes on hybrid cars to encourage buying them

These things you quote, while better then what we have now, are also outdated.

Nuclear power is dangerous and only lasts 45 years. Also, disposing of it is very harmful to the earth. Solar is a much better solution.

Ethanol.. we can't grow what they use in Brazil. We don't have the topography. The best plant we can grow for ethanol is hemp. The sugar canes in Brazil have an 85% efficacy. Hemp is unknown, but is expected to be at least 70%. Corn is 15%

Hybrid cars are outdated. We can make fuel-cell cars which are entirely self-sustaining and electrical, and also produce 100% clean H2O.

Technology has outpaced humans. Humans need to catch up. If we do, though, we won't need all these companies to provide all these services. They don't want that. So... technology is shunned :/

[PatriotOne]

Having friends that work for Exxon/Mobil, I do believe that we are headed in to a very uncertain time in our history regarding energy. Oil, natural gas, copper oar, uranium, and other elements/fuels are either in declining production or are very near that point. Does anyone know what the plan is if you abolish the department of energy and back off of this militant usurpation of other countries resources, how do we continue life here if there is no central govt. agency to keep tabs on the quick changing energy scene. I wasnt really aware until last night that there are real problems on the horizon and they are approaching quickly. I was trying to talk RP to my oil friends and this was the response I got. ????? Anyone know the answer to that one?

From what I can tell, it's the Government who is suppressing technology. There have been many people who have invented alternates to oil/gas for automobiles. The patents get bought up and put in a deep dark hole. Here's just one case study of a guy who built a dune buggy that could cross the United States on 20 or so gallons of WATER.

Google Stan Meyer and water for some video's and google him for more info.

You can also google "water, fuel, automobiles" and see other similar inventions, accounts of Government suppression, oil companies or automobile companies buying up the patents only to suppress them. There is lot's of money to be lost in the industries (oil mongers, etc) so they suppress the free technology. Hard to make money off of something you can get for free.

That's just one of many technologies suppressed for the almighty dollar. The free market approach should take care of THAT problem.

[TrueGenius]

As most of you have stated, alternative technologies have already been developed. Big oil is not going to let their profits go by the way side so easily.

With regard to the SOLAR comments: Google 'Solar Troughs' and read up on the technology. It's much better than SOLAR PVs (the one's on houses). These Solar Troughs can be farmed in Arizona and Nevada in the deserts and support the entire United States.

[Brutus]

"The problem is solar panels last for 100 years. That's 100 years of energy."

This is a problem? Hardly. Demand for electricity isn't static (sorry for the pun). There would be TONS of money to make if solar panels were cheap and easy to use (they aren't either of those yet).

The EPA drives smaller producers out of business, reducing competition and innovation. The oil business is replete with onerous regulations and controls on one side and subsidies on the other. The problem is further complicated because the oil companies don't own the oil fields, so they have no incentive to manage them wisely. They are renters, and renters have no incentive to take care of the resource or manage for the long term.

Water is a problem because of political requirements to control the price. This means people in arid regions have little reason not to plant lawns with high water requirements.

[Gee]

Most of these technologies are pretty far from being refined enough for consumer use. There are some fuel cell vehicles, but I don't think any are economical enough to mass-produce yet.

Nanosolar (google it) has a technology that will supposedly make solar power 5 to 10 times cheaper than normal solar panels, but that still won't make it as economical as other forms of energy.

If we actually cared about helping out poorer countries and cleaner fuel, we'd import ethanol from Brazil.

[Brutus]

"Troughs can be farmed in Arizona and Nevada in the deserts and support the entire United States"

Really? Line losses from Arizona to California is huge already, I can't imagine what it would be from Arizona to New York. Generate 1w of electricity and it is .1w by the time it reaches its destination.

Solar energy is relatively low density, and as such has numerous problems to overcome (I spent a fortune on solar equipment, so while not an expert I am somewhat familiar with the issues). They may be surmountable, but they are relevant. Storing solar generated electricity is a constant problem as having a pile of lead acid batteries in your garage is a significant maintenance issue.

The market could certainly work some of these things out. And it would when the costs of fossil fuels outweigh the benefits (which may already be the case if the reserves were privately owned, but since the government owns them we can't know).

[Ninja Homer]

There is no energy crisis. If there is a perceived energy crisis, then oil companies can charge more, and it is more readily excepted.

The answer to any/all energy problems, forever and ever, is here: http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/

I know some will be skeptical of it at first. If you are asking yourself, "why haven't I heard of this?", or "why isn't this energy source already being used?", you should first ask yourself, "why would a very rich oil family want to be in the White House?"

[SwordOfShannarah]

From what I've heard Hemp produces 4 times the Ethanol per acre than corn and with far less in pesticides and fertilizers (it is a weed after all!). Ron Paul has been pushing for Hemp legalization for quite a while now. This would not only cheapen fuel but it would take (I'd say) over half of the money we export to overseas oil nations and keep it here at home. Can you imagine what a boost that would be for the economy? Not to mention the jobs it would create? Not to mention all the other uses for Hemp.

On another note I wonder what Ron Paul thinks of current patent and copyright laws? Are they good as is? Do they allow big business to buy and "shelve" competitive technologies for too long? Would he reduce the number of years of protection? We're all looking for a tech fix for cheaper energy but if companies buy up patents and do nothing with them in an effort to control the market..

[Ninja Homer]

Thanks for the hemp/ethanol info, I hadn't heard that before. This would be a good thing to tell Iowans before the straw poll. There are a lot of farmers in Iowa, and a lot of them are now growing corn for ethanol production. The problem is they also buy a lot of corn for feed, and corn prices are skyrocketing because of ethanol.

I'd also like to hear Ron Paul's take on patent protection. While patent protection is definitely needed to inspire innovation and progress, when a patent is shelved or buried, it hinders progress. If somebody isn't using a patent, there should be a way for others to use the patent.

An extreme (but very possible) example:
A pharmaceutical company discovers a drug that cures cancer and patents it. Rather than bringing it to market and selling it for maybe $5000 a pop, they bury it and never release it, because their profit margins are better with what they currently have going (on average it costs $300,000 per cancer case, but I'm not sure how much of that goes to pharmaceuticals). Certainly, there should be a way for some other company to use that patent for the good of mankind.

[Gee]

The answer to any/all energy problems, forever and ever, is here: http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/

ZPE is very, very far from being usable (if it ever will be), though there is a ton of research being done on it. Oil companies aren't omnipotent. If someone made a ZPE power generator, someone in the world would jump on it. Actually, most people probably would.

[BenIsForRon]

Hemp, though very helpful, wouldn't come close to replacing our current oil consumption, which is 24 million barrels a day in the US.

Vacuum energy, if possible on a big enough scale to provide energy to the world, still needs decades of research.

No alternative is going save us from the energy crisis, we have to lower consumption and shrink the economy. Like Ron Paul says, even though he's not directly referring to energy, we are living way outside of our means. People don't like to hear this though, because this means they will have to drastically change everything about how they live their lives in the coming years, including what they do for a living. Everybody except Ron Paul will try to use socialism to solve the problem, which will just make things worse in the long run.

[RP08]

"If you subsidize anything, you get more of it." - Ron Paul

There are ways our government can help us find and implement the best solutions. One of those is to stop using my hard-earned and unconstitutionally-taxed dollars to reward systems that help maintain our dependence on foreign and inefficient energy sources.

We have amazingly brilliant and passionate people out there. Enough that in comparison, the federal government and tax-paid "specialists" aren't even a blip on the radar. Without untouchable "competition" against us, we can and will do marvelous things.

If the technology isn't there, we'll create or perfect it. If the infrastructure isn't there, we'll build it. If it's an idea nobody's thought of yet, we'll think of it.

How did we do all of that so amazingly well before the federal government had its hands in every affair? It's actually somewhat surprising that we've been able to keep this iceburg from flipping for so long as it is.

Look at all the industries that America pioneered yet now don't exist on U.S. soil. Look at all the technologies we've invented that are being done cheaper, better, faster abroad, killing our competitiveness as our dependence on imported goods grows faster than we can possibly imagine. Food even.

I have far more faith in our great people to figure out the best way to do things than I have in the government to do it for us. Honestly, it's more frightening to think about how things will be if we continue to increase our dependence on federal control.

[Montana]

Nuclear power is dangerous and only lasts 45 years. Also, disposing of it is very harmful to the earth.

This is all nonsense fear mongering. Coal kills more people every year than have died from American civilian nuclear energy in its entire history. The uranium shells we use in Iraq each contain more energy than an oil tanker. The 45 years figure comes from using just Uranium-235, which comprises only 0.7% of all uranium. The other 99.3% can be converted to a fissionable isotope of plutonium. There are also new reactors that can run on thorium, which is twice as abundant on Earth as uranium. We have enough fissionable material to last for hundreds of years -- certainly long enough to get fusion working in any event. Likewise, the waste problem is only due to our own stupidity. We consider plutonium and other potential fuels as "waste" instead of reprocessing them and using them to generate more power. It's a political issue: If we use plutonium in reactors then we look hypocritical telling other countries not to, but we don't want them making bombs out of it. But it's stupid, because you can design the reactor to generate enough Pu-240 and other reactor grade isotopes that the weapons grade Pu-239 will be inseparable and useless for a weapon. Other than potential fuels, the remainder of the waste is no more dangerous than the various industrial wastes generated by thousands of chemical plants. You know, the sort that process the chemicals needed to make solar panels?

[SwordOfShannarah]

Hemp, though very helpful, wouldn't come close to replacing our current oil consumption, which is 24 million barrels a day in the US.

Vacuum energy, if possible on a big enough scale to provide energy to the world, still needs decades of research.

No alternative is going save us from the energy crisis, we have to lower consumption and shrink the economy. Like Ron Paul says, even though he's not directly referring to energy, we are living way outside of our means. People don't like to hear this though, because this means they will have to drastically change everything about how they live their lives in the coming years, including what they do for a living. Everybody except Ron Paul will try to use socialism to solve the problem, which will just make things worse in the long run.

This isn't true. 1 acre of land with Hemp will produce all the fuel needed by an average drive for a year. There are billions of acres of farm able land in the U.S.

Technology has always defined a resource. Before fire, wood was fairly useless, before the car oil was only used to light lamps, computer imaging brings down the cost of silver.. in other words technology will provide a fix if we provide the demand. Lowering consumption isn't correct, it's changing consumption. If we spent 10 billion a month on new energy rather than the war in Iraq we wouldn't even need oil within a few years at most.

[BenIsForRon]

Montana, where are all these people with enough capital to build these breeder reactors? Keep in mind America would need about 100 to replace oil and coal consumption.

This isn't true. 1 acre of land with Hemp will produce all the fuel needed by an average drive for a year. There are billions of acres of farm able land in the U.S.

Technology has always defined a resource. Before fire, wood was fairly useless, before the car oil was only used to light lamps, computer imaging brings down the cost of silver.. in other words technology will provide a fix if we provide the demand. Lowering consumption isn't correct, it's changing consumption. If we spent 10 billion a month on new energy rather than the war in Iraq we wouldn't even need oil within a few years at most.

Lowering consumption is the only way to prevent a catastrophe worse than the Great Depression. By all indications worldwide oil production is in decline or about to go into decline. It's happening now and we aren't anywhere near the capability to replace it with some other technology.

I know I keep pimping the site in my signature, but it lays out big picture of how we are headed strait for an energy crisis in the very near future, and there is nothing we can do about it except by drastically changing our lifestyle.