HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: WOWBama Nation ()
Date: October 31, 2012 09:54AM

1. Opening up millions of acres for exploration and
development, including undiscovered oil and gas
resources in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic.

2. Investing in domestic energy sources including
wind, solar, clean coal, nuclear, and biofuels. All
while increasing our energy efficiency.

3. Doubling fuel economy of cars and light trucks
to 54.5 mpg by 2025, which will reduce oil
consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day and save
consumers more than $8,000 at the pump.

4. Calling on Congress to build on our success in
positioning America to be the world’s leading
manufacturer in high-tech batteries. President
Obama is calling for extending tax credits that
support clean energy manufacturing.

5. Setting a standard for utility companies so that 80%
of the nation’s electricity comes from clean sources
by 2035. This will help create a market for American
manufacturers to make the clean energy technology
we need, while improving access to cheaper, more
secure energy for U.S. manufacturers.

Romney's plan:
Clean coal, drill more and whatever else he says in his next speech. It changes daily.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Romnesia ()
Date: October 31, 2012 09:57AM

Romney's Plan:

Empower states to control onshore energy development
States will be empowered to control all forms of energy production on all lands within their borders, excluding only those that are specifically designated off-limits. Federal agencies will certify, but the states will lead.

Open offshore areas for energy development
Mitt will establish the most robust five-year offshore lease plan in history, that opens new areas for resource development – including off the coasts of Virginia and the Carolinas – and sets minimum production targets to increase accountability.

Pursue a North American Energy Partnership
Mitt will approve the Keystone XL pipeline, establish a new regional agreement to facilitate cross-border energy investment, promote and expand regulatory cooperation with Canada and Mexico and institute fast-track regulatory approval processes for cross-border pipelines and other infrastructure.
Ensure accurate assessment of energy resources
Instead of relying on decades-old surveys developed with decades-old technologies, Mitt’s plan facilitates new energy assessments to determine the true extent of our resource endowment.

Restore transparency and fairness to permitting and regulation
Mitt will pursue measured reforms of our environmental laws and regulations to strengthen environmental protection without destroying jobs or paralyzing industries. Mitt’s plan will also streamline the gauntlet of reviews, processes, administrative procedures, and lawsuits that mire so many new projects in red tape.

Facilitate private-sector-led development of new energy technologies
Mitt will promote innovation by focusing the federal government on the job it does best – research and development – and will eliminate any barriers that might prevent new energy technologies from succeeding on their own merits. Strengthening and streamlining regulations and permitting processes will benefit the development of both traditional and alternative energy sources, and encourage the use of a diverse range of fuels including natural gas in transportation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: WingNut ()
Date: October 31, 2012 09:59AM

Clown...


Obama rejected Keystone.

Obama rejected ANWAR drilling.

Obama has a Sec of Energy who doesn't even drive.

Obama is an enemy of coal- which incidentally helps to power your Macbook and your Prius.
Attachments:
Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Shame ()
Date: October 31, 2012 10:04AM

The federal government shouldn't have to fund a pipeline to ship oil through the US so Bush's buddies in Texas can build another federally funded refinery.

What's wrong with building refineries right near Canada????? Why do we need to pipe oil all the way across the US to a port if it is to used inside the US?

Keystone is the scam on the American ever invented.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: WingNut ()
Date: October 31, 2012 10:07AM

America doesn't need more refineries, of course not.

Gas has been between 3 or 4 bucks a gallon the past few years.

Enjoy your bus ride.
Attachments:
rachel-maddow1.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Conflicting Hypocrisy ()
Date: October 31, 2012 10:13AM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> America doesn't need more refineries, of course
> not.
>
> Gas has been between 3 or 4 bucks a gallon the
> past few years.
>
> Enjoy your bus ride.


But why does the federal government need to build it? I thought the federal government cannot do anything right, and it is immoral to take money from one group and redistribute it to another group.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: WingNut ()
Date: October 31, 2012 10:17AM

Conflicting Hypocrisy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > America doesn't need more refineries, of course
> > not.
> >
> > Gas has been between 3 or 4 bucks a gallon the
> > past few years.
> >
> > Enjoy your bus ride.
>
>
> But why does the federal government need to build
> it? I thought the federal government cannot do
> anything right, and it is immoral to take money
> from one group and redistribute it to another
> group.

Great question!
Attachments:
101120_obama_chevy_volt_ap_283_regular-500x271[1].jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Date: October 31, 2012 10:22AM

It's official: Nutty is off his meds.

Mittens is going down, Pal.

Nothing can save him now.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Lester ()
Date: October 31, 2012 10:25AM

It'll be interesting to see how "clean" or "green" everything really is. You know they don't measure the greenhouse gas emissions from mining activities when they compare the various sources of energy, only the emissions from the tailpipe and at the power generation plants. The newest technologies for extracting oil and gas release methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a 100 times worse than CO2. As a result, natural gas consumption is no better for the environment than conventional oil drilling. Extracting rare earth minerals for advanced batteries releases gases that are 1000s more harmful than CO2.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Nothing wrong here ()
Date: October 31, 2012 10:47AM

Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It'll be interesting to see how "clean" or "green"
> everything really is. You know they don't measure
> the greenhouse gas emissions from mining
> activities when they compare the various sources
> of energy, only the emissions from the tailpipe
> and at the power generation plants. The newest
> technologies for extracting oil and gas release
> methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a 100
> times worse than CO2. As a result, natural gas
> consumption is no better for the environment than
> conventional oil drilling. Extracting rare earth
> minerals for advanced batteries releases gases
> that are 1000s more harmful than CO2.


I don't see anything wrong here:
Attachments:
WD_tarsands_emissions.jpg
tarsands-beforeafter.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Just your own blinders ()
Date: October 31, 2012 11:53AM

Conflicting Hypocrisy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > America doesn't need more refineries, of course
> > not.
> >
> > Gas has been between 3 or 4 bucks a gallon the
> > past few years.
> >
> > Enjoy your bus ride.
>
>
> But why does the federal government need to build
> it? I thought the federal government cannot do
> anything right, and it is immoral to take money
> from one group and redistribute it to another
> group.


Who said that the Federal government would build them dumbass?

I know you can't wrap your head around the fact that the government doesn't do everything, but they don't build and/or operate refineries.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Conflicting Hypocrisy ()
Date: October 31, 2012 12:13PM

Just your own blinders Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conflicting Hypocrisy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WingNut Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > America doesn't need more refineries, of
> course
> > > not.
> > >
> > > Gas has been between 3 or 4 bucks a gallon
> the
> > > past few years.
> > >
> > > Enjoy your bus ride.
> >
> >
> > But why does the federal government need to
> build
> > it? I thought the federal government cannot do
> > anything right, and it is immoral to take money
> > from one group and redistribute it to another
> > group.
>
>
> Who said that the Federal government would build
> them dumbass?
>
> I know you can't wrap your head around the fact
> that the government doesn't do everything, but
> they don't build and/or operate refineries.


WingNut responded to shame's comment:

"The federal government shouldn't have to fund a pipeline to ship oil through the US so Bush's buddies in Texas can build another federally funded refinery.

What's wrong with building refineries right near Canada????? Why do we need to pipe oil all the way across the US to a port if it is to used inside the US?

Keystone is the scam on the American ever invented."

So I asked why the federal government should pay for Keystone.

Mitt said he'll build it. But that is using federal money.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Reality Check 4 U ()
Date: October 31, 2012 12:13PM

Nothing wrong here Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lester Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It'll be interesting to see how "clean" or
> "green"
> > everything really is. You know they don't
> measure
> > the greenhouse gas emissions from mining
> > activities when they compare the various
> sources
> > of energy, only the emissions from the tailpipe
> > and at the power generation plants. The newest
> > technologies for extracting oil and gas release
> > methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a 100
> > times worse than CO2. As a result, natural gas
> > consumption is no better for the environment
> than
> > conventional oil drilling. Extracting rare
> earth
> > minerals for advanced batteries releases gases
> > that are 1000s more harmful than CO2.
>
>
> I don't see anything wrong here:

Exactly! Divde land up between democrats and republicans.

Let republicans choke on their smog and swim in streams polluted with acids. Mean while democrats will be enjoying pristine views, clean air and clean water.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Lester ()
Date: October 31, 2012 12:34PM

You might new refineries because the nature of the crude oil being produced is going to be different. There's less light sweet crude oil being produced and available for export to the West.

http://www.hartenergy.com/Upstream/Research-And-Consulting/Heavy-Crude-Oil-A-Global-Analysis-And-Outlook/

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Lester ()
Date: October 31, 2012 12:39PM

I think the reality check is that the oil that's more plentiful to extract will be more invasive/destructive to the environment and require new infrastructure (refineries, pipelines, roads). It's an easier sell than pushing conservation, changes in land use, or just telling the truth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Blinders ()
Date: October 31, 2012 12:46PM

Conflicting Hypocrisy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just your own blinders Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Conflicting Hypocrisy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > WingNut Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > America doesn't need more refineries, of
> > course
> > > > not.
> > > >
> > > > Gas has been between 3 or 4 bucks a gallon
> > the
> > > > past few years.
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy your bus ride.
> > >
> > >
> > > But why does the federal government need to
> > build
> > > it? I thought the federal government cannot
> do
> > > anything right, and it is immoral to take
> money
> > > from one group and redistribute it to another
> > > group.
> >
> >
> > Who said that the Federal government would
> build
> > them dumbass?
> >
> > I know you can't wrap your head around the fact
> > that the government doesn't do everything, but
> > they don't build and/or operate refineries.
>
>
> WingNut responded to shame's comment:
>
> "The federal government shouldn't have to fund a
> pipeline to ship oil through the US so Bush's
> buddies in Texas can build another federally
> funded refinery.
>
> What's wrong with building refineries right near
> Canada????? Why do we need to pipe oil all the way
> across the US to a port if it is to used inside
> the US?
>
> Keystone is the scam on the American ever
> invented."
>
> So I asked why the federal government should pay
> for Keystone.
>
> Mitt said he'll build it. But that is using
> federal money.


Idiotic crap like this is why the talking point campaign strategy is failing beyond blind partisan Obama supporters.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Obama's Energy Plan Vs Romney's Energy Plan
Posted by: Drink or Drive? ()
Date: October 31, 2012 02:08PM

Keystone got sidetracked because of the potential impact to agriculture.

"The Ogallala Aquifer supplies ~30% of the United States' total irrigation water and ~82% of the drinking water for the >2.3 million people (1990 Census) who live within the aquifer boundary.[5] The region accounts for 19 percent of wheat, 19 percent of cotton, 15 percent of corn, 3 percent of sorghum, and 18 percent of cattle production in the U.S."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_risks_of_the_Keystone_XL_pipeline

The same issue is going to delay opening up land to fracking.

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
9Tnh4
This forum powered by Phorum.