 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RogerRabbit
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 748
Location: Oregon
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:10 pm Post subject: Bush push on energy: Draft old military bases |
 |
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7646880
| Quote: | 
Michael Williams / Getty Images file
This oil refinery in Lima, Ohio, has been around since the late 1800s,
but nationwide no new refinery has been built in the last 30 years.
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 9:36 a.m. ET April 27, 2005
WASHINGTON - Confronting growing concerns over high energy prices, President Bush on Wednesday will unveil controversial plans to spur construction of new nuclear power plants, provide incentives to buy diesel vehicles and most novel of all: use some old military bases for oil refineries.
advertisement
The president will spell out the plans in a speech to a small business group Wednesday afternoon. And while industry is likely to be on board, the nuclear and oil refinery ideas face a "not in my backyard" resistance.
The president’s proposals were outlined late Tuesday by senior White House officials, speaking in general terms and on condition of anonymity in advance of the remarks. Some of the highlights:
Oil refineries. The Energy Department is being ordered to step up discussions with communities near some former military bases to try to get refineries built. A new refinery has not been built in the United States in nearly three decades, and a refining shortage has been cited as one factor behind high gasoline prices.
Nuclear power.Bush will call on Congress to provide a “risk insurance” plan to insulate the nuclear industry against regulatory delays if they build new nuclear power plants.
Liquefied natural gas. Bush will endorse giving federal regulators final say over the location of liquefied natural gas import terminals. LNG terminals take compressed, supercold natural gas shipped from overseas and warm it into usable energy. Only four such terminals exist in the United States amid increasing demand for natural gas.
Diesel vehicles. Bush will propose adding newer, cleaner diesel vehicles to his proposal for $2.5 billion in tax credits over 10 years to buyers of high-mileage vehicles. Consumers would get a credit, up to $4,000, depending on the level of a vehicle’s fuel efficiency, if they purchase a hybrid or clean-diesel vehicle. Hybrid buyers now get a $2,000 credit but that is set to expire.
Not short-term relief
The White House officials acknowledged the proposals were not expected to provide any short-term relief from soaring gasoline and oil prices, but rather are designed to demonstrate how technology can be used to encourage more energy production from diverse sources.
It is Bush’s second speech on energy in a week. The increased attention reflects the growing concern in the White House over potential political damage from high energy prices that are beginning to affect economic growth as well as the president’s approval rating.
As he did last week, he will call on Congress to give him an energy bill by this summer. The House has passed a version, while the Senate will begin debate next month. Administration officials want to work with congressional leaders to include Bush’s proposals.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who is trying to put together an energy package that can pass the Senate, said he welcomed some of the president’s proposals. He is “making it clear that energy remains a top priority of this president,” Domenici said in a statement.
The White House officials said Bush believes the country needs a diverse supply of energy and more should be done to get new power reactors, refineries and liquefied natural gas plants built.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that less than half of Americans support the way the president is handling energy policy. Bush met Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at his Texas ranch on Monday but reached no agreement that would lower gasoline prices in the near term.
Nuclear background
There has not been a new commercial nuclear power plant ordered in the United States since 1973 and no new refinery built in nearly 30 years, although many existing ones have been expanded.
advertisement
Click Here
Nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of the country’s electricity. Some utilities have expressed interest in building a new reactor, perhaps as early as 2010, but want assurance of a smooth regulatory process to get financing.
To address their concern, the officials said, the president is directing the Energy Department to develop a federal “risk insurance” plan that would kick in if there were lengthy delays in licensing a new reactor. The officials acknowledged such a program would need congressional action and said they could not speculate on its cost.
LNG background
LNG terminal projects have been stymied in some regions by local opposition, even though the need for more LNG imports has been widely accepted.
Bush’s support for giving the federal government clear authority in locating LNG terminals comes after the House included such a provision in the energy bill it passed last week. Some lawmakers strongly opposed the measure, arguing it would deprive states and communities of a say in locating LNG import terminals at a time when a dozen or more such facilities may be built along the U.S. coast.
The critics say they fear that federal control over locating LNG import terminals will lead to facilities being put in populated areas where communities fear they are unsafe and might become terrorist targets.
A senior official said there are 32 proposals to build new terminals, and Bush’s proposal would “provide some regulatory certainty” in order to get them built. Rules on the terminals vary from state to state, and California, for example, has not wanted to cede state authority. |
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Snipe
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 574
Location: Peoria, Illinois
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, for starters, they could build a new nuclear plant on the
site of the old Coastal Artillary Base at Camp Callen. Just tear
out that useless University of California, San Diego. Then they
can build an oil refinery at the site of the old USMC Camp
Mathews and rip out all of the most expensive condos on the
planet. Then maybe San Diego would be worth moving back
to.
_________________
Tin Can Sailor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doc Farmer
LCDR
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 442
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Snipe wrote: | Well, for starters, they could build a new nuclear plant on the
site of the old Coastal Artillary Base at Camp Callen. Just tear
out that useless University of California, San Diego. Then they
can build an oil refinery at the site of the old USMC Camp
Mathews and rip out all of the most expensive condos on the
planet. Then maybe San Diego would be worth moving back
to.
|
I heard the UCSD campus was quite lovely. Seems a shame to tear it down for a refinery. Couldn't they just build it in Old Town instead? After all, as the name suggests, it's old...
_________________
Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snipe
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 574
Location: Peoria, Illinois
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yabut, when those old base streets and the pads that the buildings
were on got overgrown with brush in the '50s, you could drive a
car under it and, with a bunch of friends, have great parties there.
The University ruined it for all the locals. Besides, I don't want to
build a refinery, I want to build a nuke plant. After it slides down
the unstable cliffs onto Blacks Beach, all the commie/libs will run
back to the right coast where they belong.
_________________
Tin Can Sailor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
srmorton
PO2
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 383
Location: Jacksonville, NC
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm with you, Snipe. Nuclear power is one of the least expensive and
cleanest sources of energy. Contrary to popular opinion, it is a safe
source of energy as well. Since the world was introduced to nuclear
power, there have only been two serious nuclear accidents. Chernobyl
was a complete core meltdown, but Three Mile Island was only a partial
core meltdown. Although there is the problem of disposal of the nuclear
wastes, our technology is capable of coming up with a solution to that.
The problem is the "environmentalist wackos". They have put out so
much negative propaganda about nuclear power at the same time they
are insisting on all of those different gasoline formulations that contribute
so much to the cost of gasoline. That gives the uninformed public the
NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome and the protests when anyone
suggests building a nuclear reactor in their community. The radical
environmentalists will not be happy until the US is on the same economic
level as a third world country.
_________________
Susan R. Morton |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wwIIvetsdaughter
Captain
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 513
Location: McAllen, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Because of the Radical Enviro Wackos and their lawyers, no new refinery has been built in the USA in thirty years! So, its simply a law of supply and demand. Anyone with half a brain knows the number of people, cars, etc. has gone up at least 25% in the past thirty years, ergo production has not kept up with demand. Add to that California and other wacko state requirements for "summer blends" and your cutting further into production capabliltiy. Can you imagine if your city/town/municipaltiy had not built any additional streets, sewer lines, highways etc. since 1975 despite population growth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
USS Endicott
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 46
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srmorton wrote: | I'm with you, Snipe. Nuclear power is one of the least expensive and
cleanest sources of energy. Contrary to popular opinion, it is a safe
source of energy as well. Since the world was introduced to nuclear
power, there have only been two serious nuclear accidents. Chernobyl
was a complete core meltdown, but Three Mile Island was only a partial
core meltdown. Although there is the problem of disposal of the nuclear
wastes, our technology is capable of coming up with a solution to that.
The problem is the "environmentalist wackos". They have put out so
much negative propaganda about nuclear power at the same time they
are insisting on all of those different gasoline formulations that contribute
so much to the cost of gasoline. That gives the uninformed public the
NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome and the protests when anyone
suggests building a nuclear reactor in their community. The radical
environmentalists will not be happy until the US is on the same economic
level as a third world country. |
I won't be jumping on the nuclear band wagon until I'm convinced that there is a way, other than burying it and depending on the government to keep the waste from entering the ground water, to get rid of the nuclear waste. Doesn't it take like 12000 years for nuclear waste, such as carbon14, to safely decay? Until our technology answers the waste problems, I will remain anti-nuclear power. Besides, why would terrorists need a nuclear bomb, when there's a nuclear power plant to blow up instead.
I live near the Naval Warfare Weapons Assessment and our town has a water problem due to the chemicals dumped on the site. The chemicals have entered the ground water and the city has found several wells with contaminated water. According to our public health dept. there is also a higher risk of developing thyroid problems for residents here. The problems we face here has an effect on my views regarding nuclear power.
_________________
"God Bless America and keep watch over our military personnel. Thanks to all who have served and are serving now!" from a California American. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Army_(Ret)
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 06 Aug 2004
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wwIIvetsdaughter wrote: | | Because of the Radical Enviro Wackos and their lawyers, no new refinery has been built in the USA in thirty years! So, its simply a law of supply and demand. Anyone with half a brain knows the number of people, cars, etc. has gone up at least 25% in the past thirty years, ergo production has not kept up with demand. Add to that California and other wacko state requirements for "summer blends" and your cutting further into production capabliltiy. Can you imagine if your city/town/municipaltiy had not built any additional streets, sewer lines, highways etc. since 1975 despite population growth? |
Well said wwIIvetsdaughter!!
_________________
Peace is acheived through victory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul R.
PO3
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 273
Location: Illinois
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:18 am Post subject: Beam it down, Scotty! |
|
|
Hey everybody, I haven't been here for a while. Nice to see the forum is still up and active.
I wonder if Dubya would give me $4000 to restore my old Honda CRX? Until it got over 150,000 miles on it, that little car would get 45-47 real mpg combined city / highway, and sometimes almost 70 mpg on the highway. No, I am not kidding! 'Course though, that went to heck if you went over 60-65 mph -- I think the car was "tuned" to Carter's old 55 mph speed limit. And, it was a two-seater, so, you know, you could not take 4 people to work with you. (But how many people really do that?) Come to think of it, though, I did once take 5 lovely young ladies to a picnic in it once. But they all had boyfriends who were bouncers and I'm 5'6" -- dang! I did not even dare ask any of the girls for a date...
Yeah, the foolish days of youth, but, I digress!
Really, if you are going to give credits for hybrids, why not give a credit for any high mileage car? Maybe throw in a fudge factor for larger families who would have to buy a larger vehicle, but still could be encouraged to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. (Actually, I'm not totally sold on the idea of these credits, but, again, why just hybrids?)
As for the larger view, I'd really like to see Bush (who's speaking about energy right now) come up with (ok, push Congress to come up with) about 10 billion a year to loan to Burt Rutan and his friends to develop systems to collect solar energy in orbit and beam it down to the U.S. This is not as crazy as it sounds -- most if not all the technology already exists. So, Burt & Co. figure out how to do it for 1/10 the cost NASA would do it for, then Rutan pays back the loan and his group gets to keep the profits. (He'll probably use the profit $$ to beat NASA to Mars!)
A nice side benefit to this is that you could probably just take the $10 billion right out of DOD's new weapons and nukes budget -- this thing would make one heck of a weapon too. (Better have the right people operating it!) Do this and we might end up selling energy to China: Now wouldn't that be nice?!! (It probably even keeps us from eventually fighting a war with China, not for Taiwan, but for energy.)
Paul R.
_________________
Paul R. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
