Talk:Energy policy of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top importance within energy.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Initial comments 2 What policy? 3 Pertinent information available on the web: 4 Status of US Energy Policy and Why One is Needed. 5 Additional information; 6 The Good News That's Bad News About Mercury. 7 Getting this article back on track... 8 Some Edits?? 9 Cleanup 10 Further complexity section and OR tag 11 Public Opinion Section 12 Too speculative 13 chart 14 2008 Update 15 Energy Consumption 16 thomas.gov 17 "Legislative proposals and negotiations are taking place to eliminate $21 billion USD" 18 reminder to stay on point 19 Editorial assistance request - Please help me do better 20 This is why there's a policy called "No Original Research" 21 100 mpg 22 No mention of drilling in the U.S. 23 Move of article 24 The scope of this article has crept beyond the bounds of its title 25 Why Fuss

[edit] Initial comments

Okay, the article is a bit better, but it still needs refencing to Dick Cheney'ls oil task force findings, etc. I hope my work helps the next person along. Timharwoodx 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

article is now somewhat more NPOV, still needs work and more technical dataAnlace 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone want to do it? Timharwoodx 23:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What policy?

Does the United States actually have a published energy policy complete with schedule of when the different milestones of that policy will be achieved? No. The problem is, therefore, a complete lack of a energy policy as such.

Further, I find it necessary to dispute the neutrality of this article, in particular the wording concerned with US action in Iraq. It is from a point of view that overlooks a number of important issues.

67.128.190.156 17:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Don Granberry.

[edit] Pertinent information available on the web:

From this link one can read/listen/watch a presentation given by Dr. Nathan Lewis, the George L. Argyros Professor of Chemistry at Caltech. The presentation focuses on what options the US (and the rest of the world) could use to develop a carbon neutral energy supply, if the country deemed this necessary. There is also a brief discussion at the beginning of why one might be interested in having a carbon neutral energy supply. I believe that the information in this talk is extremely relevant to a discussion on US energy policy and should be added as a link.

http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html Hisahshi1 06:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This link will lead the reader to what the current administration holds forth as its "energy policy".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/

This link will lead the reader to a concise--too concise in my opinion--criticism of the above linked document.

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~lindenf/pse/NEPD.htm

These three links give us a fair picture of what the legislative bodies have done with the Bush Administration proposals.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.2460:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.4:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR00004:@@@L&summ2=m&

A cursory examination of the above three links suggests that neither the US Congress nor the US Senate has actually done anything about establishing a US Energy Policy. What little legisiation that has been written appears to still be awaiting final action by the House-Senate conference committees.

I am in the process of reading all of this stuff and will post more here later as time and careful rumination allows.

67.128.171.108 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Don Granberry.

So you honestly think GWB has spent pushing half a trillion dollars allocated, invading the world's second richest oil nation, because he was worried about WMD that never existed? There is a very clear energy policy, that resulted from Dick Cheney's work, which was a redeployment of American troops from Western Europe, to the Caspian oil basin. Now, how one evidences that, I have not dug out the links, but that is clearly the de facto energy policy of the GWB administration. I think you need to go back to 1992 and some of the stuff Cheney / Wolfowitz were churning out to understand present policy, defense planning guidance, when they were saying Iraq was key to securing American oil supplies into the 21st century, etc. They picked up in 2001 where they left off in 1992, as regards policy, really. Timharwoodx 20:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is, "Yes." This says nothing about the general level of sanity vis a vis American politicians. Even so, your point is well taken. We the taxpayers will pay for this conflict and future conflicts and it will be our friends, neighbors and kin who will die in those conflicts. See the post I just made below.

Thanks,

67.128.169.97 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Don Granberry.

[edit] Status of US Energy Policy and Why One is Needed.

Expensive fuel is a good thing for the United States right now. Those high prices are indicative of a national security crisis caused by Americans' insatiable appetite for energy in a form that allows them the "freedom" of their not-so-open roads. To satisfy this appetite, Americans are enriching a large number of people who appreciate American money but not Americans, and are dreaming of the day when Americans will be subjugated to their religion or ideology. Notice, if you will, that they do not feel compelled to subjugate all of us. They are more than willing to kill as many of as is necessary to achieve their goal of subjugating us.

Americans also have a more than healthy appetite for other forms of energy, especially electrical energy. They fuel most of their electrical power plants with coal at the moment, and this should come as no great surprise because the United States possesses huge reserves of coal. Unfortunately, the burning of coal causes yet another and horribly pernicious national security crisis.

All, or nearly all, of the coal deposits on earth have small amounts of mercury in them. While pure metallic mercury does not present a great hazard to human life, mercury compounds created when mercury is burned do. These compounds are taken up by various microscopic and macroscopic organisms and thereby become part of our food chain. Even worse, mercury contamination tends to become the most concentrated in the upper parts of the food chain. Human beings are at the apex of the food chain.

It is reasonable to assume then that human beings will be the first organisms on this planet to die out from mercury poisoning. The bright spot here, assuming the viewpoint of a nature worshipper, is that dying humans will serve to sequester the mercury in the subsoil, thereby filtering it back out of the natural food chain. Natural law is not tempered by mercy.

It is difficult to say off hand which of these two security problems is the most acute. The problem with mercury contamination is already making itself felt and it will become impossible to live with much sooner than is generally anticipated at this time. The onset of mercury poisoning is marked by progressive insanity and the world is already mad enough to be cause for great concern.

However, the problem of sundry despots using American money to purchase nuclear weapons along with sophisticated delivery systems for them has a kind of charm that focuses the attention of the American news media quite wonderfully. Unfortunately, it appears to be less efficacious at focusing the American intellect. Most Americans still insist on driving their overly large vehicles at speeds in excess of seventy miles per hour. Rest assured, all three of these problems are equally deadly.

Contrary to the beliefs of many, public and corporate policy in the United States is reflective of the attitudes and desires of its citizenry. Corporate leaders are allowed to use persuasion, honest and dishonest, and enticements to influence the decisions of U.S. citizens, but they are not allowed the overt use of coercive force. To employ the use of coercive force against US citizens, the corporate leaders must influence the country's political leaders. The game between US corporate leadership and its political leadership is very much a two way street.

Politicians in the United States are somewhat scrutinized by the generally free press in the United States, but that scrutiny varies markedly in its quality. The true drawback to the American system is the general lack of intelligent media leadership and the resultant lack of intelligently directed efforts of the news media. The news media in the United States is riddled with blatherskites who determinedly focus on trivial matters. The system is also greatly hampered by news editors who steadfastly underestimate the intelligence of most Americans. Once properly informed, the American public can and very often does exhibit remarkable determination to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, one result of the effectiveness of news media scrutiny is that many politicians have adopted the political strategy of clinging to issues rather than addressing the problems giving rise to their issues. With the disappearance of a particular issue, so often does the politician's excuse to stand in front of television cameras.

According to the United States Energy Information Administration, the United States currently imports 11.48 million barrels of oil or its equivalent per day. Of that, 4.87 million barrels a day, or forty-two percent, comes from countries whose religion or ideology all but obliges them to have an active dislike for the United States and its citizenry.

Those countries are, Saudi Arabia, from which the United States imports 1.6 million barrels per day; Venezuela, 1.4 million barrels per day, Nigeria, 1.1 million barrels per day; Algeria 543, 000 barrels per day; and the US Virgin Islands, 239, 000 barrels per day.

Saudi Arabia is, officially, a nation friendly with the United States, but it does not appear that the views of the Saudi government are fully commensurate with those of its people, given the number of Saudis involved in the World Trade Center Atrocity. It should also be remembered that Al Quaeda was founded by a Saudi Arabian, Usama bin Laden, and originated from the religious and political philosophies still quite prevalent in Saudi Arabia.

The nation of Nigeria is a troubled country that currently does not profess any hatred for the United States, but it must be remembered that fifty percent of the people living in Nigeria are Muslims who live under traditional religious law. Nigeria's military is given to periodic fits of rebellion. Algeria is essentially no different from Nigeria.

Venezuela is now being led by Hugo Chavez-Frias, a harsh critic of the United States whose warmest allies are Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-il. The national oil company of Venezuela owns half interest in the refineries operating in the US Virgin Islands and I have not been able to determine where those interests purchase the feedstock for that refinery. It can be reasonably assumed that at least half of the profits from the ongoing petroleum operations in the US Virgin Islands find their way into the coffers of Hugo Chavez-Frias. Venezuela is also realizing considerable cash flow from petroleum operations on the US mainland, being the primary supplier of Citgo.

Assuming the rather charitable price of $50.00/bbl, for crude oil and its equivalents, the United States is enriching actual or probable enemies at the rate of 243.4 million dollars per day. This works out to 88,84 billion dollars per annum. This is more than sufficient monies to purchase a long list of deadly weapons and their requisite support systems.

About thirty-three percent of American oil imports come from countries that are less than reliable in the sense that their internal politics could easily interrupt crude oil supplies to the United States, or unreliable in the sense that they could suddenly become hostile to the United States, or that they may actually already be hostile toward the United States, but said hostility has not yet been made obvious.

The largest of these troublesome suppliers is Mexico at 1.75 million barrels per day. The internal politics of Mexico might well present the United States with another political figure like Hugo Chavez-Frias. The next largest among these suppliers is Iraq. The Iraqis currently sell 531,000 barrels per day to the United States. The Iraqis could, if things calm down, provide the United States with something like 6 million barrels per day of fairly good quality crude, but will it always be in the interests of the United States to buy large quantities of crude oil from Iraq? There are signs that the Iraqis will not necessarily be fast friends of the United States once they are back on their feet.

The other countries I placed in this category are Angola providing 368,000 barrels/day, Ecuador providing 319,000 barrels/day, Russia providing 218,000 barrels/day, Colombia providing 176,000 barrels/day, Brazil providing 111,000 barrels/day, and Chad providing 82,000 barrels/day.

The United States purchases only twenty-five percent of its foreign oil from countries that it can be relatively sure is not an enemy or will not become an enemy without excellent reason. Of these, Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States, providing 2.23 million barrels of oil per day. The United Kingdom provides 315,000 barrels/day, and Norway provides 206,000 barrels/day. The United States also purchases 80,000 barrels/day from Trinidad and Tobago, which is unlikely to ever present a military threat.

These figures are demonstrative of the need for a rationally thought out energy policy, given that market forces never take national security concerns into account by any means other than abrupt rises in fuel prices, or outright disruptions in fuel supplies. According to the Energy Information Administration, Americans burn about 15 million barrels of liquid fuels per day, including gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. Rounding half of that figure up to match what can be safely assumed is imported or is derived from imported crude, gives us the nice round figure of 8 million barrels per day that the United States needs to replace with locally sourced liquid fuels or, failing that, some other form of energy.

There are forty-two US gallons (35 British gallons) in a barrel of oil. This translates into a replacement production target of 336 million gallons of liquid fuels per day. It is important to remember that these are daily production targets, not annual targets. This presents the United States with a very difficult goal to achieve and it will not be achieved over night. The American political system is not very good at sustaining the efforts necessary to achieve long-term goals. This particular goal will be especially difficult to reach because it will be hard for politicians who favor high fuel prices to stay in office.

The utility of high fuel prices in reaching this production target cannot be overestimated. First and foremost, high prices for conventional fuels force fuel users to conserve. Even small improvements in fuel mileage significantly reduce the size of the production target for alternative fuels. Almost as important is that high prices for conventional liquid fuels make alternatives to those fuels profitable, thereby assuring that the alternative fuels will be produced and placed in a national distribution system. Achieving these ends is not technically difficult; engineering solutions are more less in hand. The difficulties arise from social and political pressures.

A putative energy policy of the United States should address one particularly nasty trap that is not immediately obvious on cursory inspection of the problem. Nearly every alternative to conventional liquid fuels will throw a larger burden on the power grid in the United States. Indeed, any increased production capacity for any fuel in the United States will increase the load on the US power grid. This increased load will require additional generating capacity. If that capacity is increased under the current pollution control regime, mercury contamination will be greatly exacerbated.

New refineries for conventional fuels could have co-generation designed in them, resulting in better profit margins for refiners, but at the cost of increased capital investment at the front. The oldest refineries in the United States should be shutdown as new refineries are built. Physical plant producing alternative liquid fuels should be required to have cogeneration capacity built into them whenever it is technically feasible.

Two of the conservation measures proposed to alleviate our problem with conventional liquid fuels, which is mainly a national security issue, shifts at least part, if not all, of the load over onto the power grid. The use of hybrid or all electric vehicles for instance, shifts part or all of the reduction of liquid fuel use onto the electrical grid. All electric vehicles get all of the energy they use from the power grid and the increase in battery production will also place additional demands for power on the grid. Production of the vehicle bodies and their motors is likely an even swap with the energy used in the production of conventional vehicles, but hybrid electric vehicles also need batteries, thereby placing greater demand on the electrical system as batteries are manufactured for them.

The elimination of steel in vehicle design will increase demands on the electrical system and will also require the use of at least some crude oil. Fiber composite replacements for steel uses products derived from crude oil. A great deal of heat along with the creation of a vacuums is required to produce fiber composite parts, both of which require many watt-hours of electricity.

Problems with local politics and social sensitivities can arise when implementing these kinds of plans. Such problems are often a surprise, even when they should be anticipated. For instance, it is easy to imagine that the citizens of California would readily approve of a law that would require them to convert over to all electric or hybrid electric vehicles. But, it also easy to anticipate the problems Californians would then have when it came time to add the necessary power lines to support that conversion. Very few Californians can tolerate the sight of high voltage transmission lines near their domiciles.

A similar situation arises in California and other parts of the United States as regards wind generated electrical power. Electricity from windmills is one of the few alternative methods of generating capacity that has proven itself genuinely viable. The western parts of Texas are already bristling with windmills and there will soon be many of them erected off the Texas Gulf Coast. So far, no other state has permitted windmill construction to the degree required to make such operations profitable. Even the state of Louisiana has refused construction permits for offshore wind farms.

Sustained high prices for liquid fuels would, sooner or later, overcome many of these social and political barriers. Federal fiat could also overcome them, but only at high political cost for an indeterminable number of federal legislators. Politicians share little in common with the spirit of soldiers and are seldom inclined to become breach filler even if only in the political sense.

These same kinds of socio-political barriers have prevented oil companies from drilling off the coastlines of states other than Texas and Louisiana, thus obliging the oil companies to purchase crude from suppliers with little liking for the United States. On 30 Jun 2006, the Congress of the United States passed a bill that would remove these restrictions, but this bill is not expected to survive parliamentary maneuvering in the Senate. The bill must pass in both houses of the legislature and be approved by the President before it can become law.

Both houses of the U.S. legislature have worked on proposals offered by the President. These proposals were the result of a task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney shortly after the Bush Administration was elected to office. Members of both major political parties and numerous Non-governmental Organizations heavily criticized the report generated by this task force, but the report did at least do a fair job of defining the problems of U.S. energy consumption and supply. Both houses of the legislature have subsequently passed bills to address these proposals. However, the joint House/Senate conference committee formed to finalize the legislation has allowed these bills to languish in the members file cabinets since August of 2004.

What is, perhaps, even more shameful is that the news media in the United States has done absolutely nothing to take American politicians to task for this foolish behavior. Leadership of the Congress, the Senate and in the Whitehouse is very much at fault for allowing this matter to stagnate. It is a matter of exceedingly critical importance that needs to be addressed immediately, yet the news media of the United States has remained largely silent on this issue. As is ever the case, the American public has not been informed of the details concerning what this legislation will or will not accomplish.

The legislature of the United States is now passing various energy related bills in a piecemeal fashion. The product of this haphazard process has yielded some incredibly stupid and disjointed legislation that allows U.S. politicians to blather about how they are "doing something" when in fact much of that legislation accomplishes nothing or makes matters worse.

Mostly what Congress has done is fund various research programs and pilot projects. This is all the government of the United States has ever actually done to alleviate the country's energy problems. Nothing has been done to stem the tide of dollars inundating the Middle East or to reduce the nation's dependence on imported energy supplies.

Ironically, as this was being written, the Republican dominated Congress has been busy rebuking the New York Times for having revealed the fact that the United States has been scrutinizing banking records in an effort to track down terrorist organizations. Meanwhile, the United States continues to purchase oil from Venezuela and a long list of other hostile suppliers of crude oil to the United States. Citgo has even had the gall to run advertisements about what reliable supplier of energy Venezuela is. I daresay, Venezuela will most certainly remain a "reliable" supplier of energy to the United States. Both Fidel Castro and Kim Jong-il need the money! Clearly, something must be done about mercury contamination and it must be done very quickly.

67.128.169.97Don Granberry

Lest anyone question what I say about Hugo Chavez-Frias and his links to the DPRK, you are invited to review the KCNA archives:

http://www.kcna.co.jp/

As well as what has been reported about Chavez-Frias in the Chosun Ilbo:

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200606/200606250012.html

Regards,

67.128.169.97 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Don Granberry.

Seems there is more than enough insanity to go around:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/30/MNG28JN61N1.DTL

http://www.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGBGOA802PE.html

67.128.169.97 00:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Don Granberry

[edit] Additional information;

This fellow:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/14/venezuela.arms.ap/index.html

This bird:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30

Make careful note of the weapons stores this airframe can carry!

This budding friendship:

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200606/200606250012.html

All of which is made possible because the We the People are being negligent and not paying attention to what are leadership is not doing. If this is not the early signs of mercury poisoning, I'll take up the art of making felt hats.

In all seriousness, KCNA's rhetoric and the speeches made by Chavez-Frias are nearly the same. How long are we to ignore it?

And here is another crisis, not made possible dollars but by the yen:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/04/iran.deadline/index.html

Has anyone bothered to think of why the Iranians want to delay discussions until August. Hasn't anyone considered the possibility that the Iranians might be preparing a nasty little surprise for us? I have.

67.128.171.103 17:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Don Granberry

[edit] The Good News That's Bad News About Mercury.

If phytoremediation like this is truly efficaceous, then we must also assume that continuous injection of mercury into the globel enviroment will eventually effect more than aquatic food chains.

http://www.acnatsci.org/education/kye/te/phyto.html

There is no reason to think that the mercury problem is restricted to the aquatic food chain or that it will remain so restricted after a prolonged period of large scale emissions.

67.128.171.53 20:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Don Granberry

[edit] Getting this article back on track...

Come on, the talk page is supposed to be used to discuss the article. It looks like one anonymous user was using this space as a blog. (Wikipedia is not a soapbox)

Anyway, here's my take on how this article should be laid out. Energy policy, like foreign policy, is a moving target. It's a bunch of laws, actions, emphases, etc. that change with each administration and in response to various crises. As such, I think this article should primarily be laid out chronologically, something like:

Federal policies prior to 1970

Energy crises of the 70's

Deregulation

Major energy legislation of the last 20 years

Current issues

I'll try to make a start in that direction in the next week or so.

As far as the current contents (focused exclusively on oil's impact on foreign policy), I guess some of it is salvageable in one of those "current issues" sections I mentioned. We'll see. InNuce 02:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Edits??

Perhaps this article can be improved by removing (or significantly reducing the Oil debate and the current presidency, to an new article "Oil use in the US", GW Bush and oil is a subset of subset of the total US energy policy. Then the Cheney forum would be a subtext of that section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.77.117 (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cleanup

The sections Oil and Major issues with oil supply are terrible with there bullets. It really need to be put in sentence form. ~User:Tcbmotors

[edit] Further complexity section and OR tag

This section contains no inline citations and adds remarkably little to the article. It is not encyclopedic, and this is an example of the emotive language used:

Large energy companies have funded dubious research institutes to issue junk science reports to bolster investment in their industry.

Some material appears to be original research, and some other material is just out of date:

research on fuel cells and using large-scale solar power and wind farms has been undertaken.

-- Johnfos 23:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Have removed OR tag, as offending material has largely been removed now. -- Johnfos 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public Opinion Section

This entire section is almost entirely plagiarized from the article it quotes as its source. It even makes reference to a graph that appears in the original article which has not be included here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by —The preceding unsigned comment was added by tridian (talk • contribs).

if it quotes a source how can it be plagiarism? sbandrews (t) 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too speculative

Though aiming especially at the "OIl [sic] Crises and the Modern Age" section, I see the whole article as having a lot of awkward, unencyclopedic speculation without any specific references to sources. The example presented in the aforementioned section is completely unfounded. The reader would have to search through the References provided at the end to get this "what if" scenario backed up. Also, I'd assume that to the average reader, that example would seem very absurd. "What if everyone simply accepted to change their lifestyles and throw in some major infrastructural overhauls" scenarios generally seem unrealistic. The consequences of this change are not discussed, of which the economical could potentially be enormous. Again, needs reasoning. 193.193.85.118 17:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

well the section is a bit loose and unreferenced, but it's hardly absurd or speculative, sbandrews (t) 18:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chart

Energy policy of the United States US carbon dioxide emissions (thousands of metric tons of CO2)[51] cut and paste this chart onto an excel sheet and found additional cells, i feel a bit silly but am interested in what the values represent and what relationships were used, please respond to megatree@safe-mail.net If you are out there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.237.171 (talk) 18:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

A metric ton is 1,000 kilograms, so a thousand metric tons is 1,000,000 kilograms. Every gallon of gasoline when burned gives up 19 pounds of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. One kilogram is about 2.205 pounds. Each source of CO2 was added to obtain the total. Trees and other plants use carbon dioxide to grow. Natural sources of CO2 such as animal life and forest fires are not included. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Update

I added references to new important 2007 energy policy legislation and negotiations. I tried to be consistent with the esisting style. I'll be glad to discuss the details and add more if people want. Escientist (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i removed this material as it was added to the lede rather than the body of the article, and contained unnecessary editorializing about future events (WP does not speculate upon the future, see WP:CRYSTAL). you're welcome to add the material (without the editorializing) into the body. focusing on one specific bill within the lede, with no discussion in the body, fails WP:LEDE. Anastrophe (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Consumption

I added a new section on Energy Consumption, before the discussion of Sources, to focus the reader on where our priorities should really be. I'll be glad to discuss any changes with you. Escientist (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

this is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy site. it is inappropriate to attempt to guide the user's opinions of "where our priorities should really be", which fails NPOV and constitutes soapboxing. Anastrophe (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the priority terms and just documented the current facts. Reders can draw their own conclusions from the facts. Surly you can not contesting that buildings consume more energy than transportation or industry. Surly you do not think that conservation is not as important as Sources. PLEASE stop doing entire block deletes when a bit of editing is required. Escientist (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

please WP:AGF. there is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary with doing 'block deletes' - it's called a reversion, and hundreds of thousands of WP editors do so every day. it is inappropriate to publish POV material, then expect fellow editors to follow along behind you cleaning it up to be policy compliant. also, please show courtesy to your fellow editors by including an edit summary with your edits, which is strongly encouraged in WP guidelines. and again, please stop implying motive, which is uncivil. i have asked you to please stop this inappropriate behaviour over and over, yet you continue to flaunt this policy. Anastrophe (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thomas.gov

for the edification of all editors, please have a look at the web-cite i've put in place for the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 at thomas.gov. with a few minutes of reading the instructions on thomas.gov, i was able to create a proper, direct reference to the specific bill, as opposed to simply pointing readers to the homepage, which is invalid for a citation. here's a link to the thomas.gov help page: http://www.thomas.gov/home/example.html Anastrophe (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

another helpful tip: please have a look at the thomas.gov reference again. an identical citation was added earlier in the article. by naming the ref, the second reference could be called by name, without making a duplicate full citation. this reduces clutter both within the article body during editing, and in the reference list. Anastrophe (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - excellent editing! I hope others take note. Escientist (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Legislative proposals and negotiations are taking place to eliminate $21 billion USD"

the lede text references this, but also states that it is no longer in the bill - which renders the whole section moot. furthermore, explicit details about one specific piece of legislation are inappropriate to the lede. i'm going to remove it. Anastrophe (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reminder to stay on point

this article is about Energy policy of the United States. that does not encompass inexpensive cars sold in india, or increases in china's silicon wafer output. while interesting material, it's completely outside the scope of this article. i would encourage addition of that info to other articles where appropriate, of course. Anastrophe (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i.e. Energy policy of <other country>, Green transport, Sustainable design, Sustainable development —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.138.40 (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point - Thank you Escientist (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial assistance request - Please help me do better

2008 Presidential Politics is playing an important role in forming 2008 / 2009 energy policy of the United States. I want to use the published energy policy platforms of the major candidates to indicate more clearly what the candidates are promising to do. This is the first time since Jimmy Carter was elected that energy policy is playing an important role in electing our president, and determining how we should solve energy policy problems. The election will help determine what we do about energy. I will not show any preference for any candidate, and will only document solid cited facts, not opinions. Here is one candidate's example. Please help me get it into an acceptable, valuable form that is appropriate to this excellent Wikipedia article:

Hillary Clinton’s plan[1] to promote energy independence, address global warming, and transform our economy includes:

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 – the level necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
• Cut foreign oil imports by two-thirds from projected levels by 2030. (President Carter ordered the end of oil imports from Iran,[2] and he had a plan to slash oil imports to one-eighth of total energy consumption[3]. It was terminated by President Reagan, who then increased subsidies to companies who import oil. Today we import two thirds of the oil we use.)
• Transform our carbon-based economy into an efficient green economy, creating at least 5 million jobs from clean energy over the next decade.
  • A cap-and-trade program that auctions 100% of emission permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards U.S. Energy Independence (as is being urged by many major corporations[4]);
  • An aggressive, comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20% from projected levels by 2020 (much less than the 31% potential demonstrated by the U.S. DOE Weatherization Assistance Program[5]) by changing the way utilities do business (from outdated systems that reward excess energy production to market-based approaches that reward efficiency, distributed generation, and conservation), catalyzing a green building industry[6], enacting strict appliance efficiency standards[7], and phasing out incandescent light bulbs (already included in the U.S. “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007”^[1]);
  • A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy (U.S. House Resolution 6 passed by a wide bipartisan margin in January 2007, but was defeated by one vote in the Senate in on December 13, 2007). The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan;
  • Doubling of federal investment in basic energy research, including funding for an ARPA-E, (a new research agency modeled on the successful Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which created the Internet in 1972, etc.);
  • Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25% of electricity by 2025 (Bush proposed 20% by 2020), and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030 (the U.S. “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007”^[1] defined 35 billion gallons of biofuels, with $7 billion in subsidies, which is strongly opposed internationally.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]});
  • 10 “Smart Grid City” partnerships to prove the advanced capabilities of smart grid (as previously proposed by Al Gore’s 2006 “Electranet”[8] and Barack Obama’s “Digital Electricity Grid”[9]), and other advanced demand-reduction technologies,[10] as well as new investment in plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies (already included in the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007”^[1];)
  • An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030 (in line with the 35 mph in 2020 in the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007”^[1]), and $20 billion of “Green Vehicle Bonds” to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards;
  • A plan to catalyze a thriving green building industry by investing in green collar jobs and helping to modernize and retrofit 20 million low-income homes to make them more energy efficient (an extension of the 30-year-old existing successful 1977 U.S. DOE Weatherization Assistance Program that has already retrofitted 5.5 million homes, with an average savings of 31%[11]);
  • A new “Connie Mae” program to make it easier for low and middle-income Americans to buy green homes and invest in green home improvements (a new government agency for the existing FHA, VA, FNMA and FHLMC “Energy Efficient Mortgage Program[12] [13] [14];
  • A requirement that all publicly-traded companies report financial risks due to climate change in annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. (This is a proposal to nationalize the New York State Attorney General's office demand for the full discloser of "financial risks from greenhouse gases" to their shareholders – “Any one of the several new or likely regulatory initiatives for CO2 emissions from power plants - including state carbon controls, EPA's regulations under the Clean Air Act, or the enactment of federal global warming legislation - would add a significant cost to carbon-intensive coal generation” [15]); and
  • Creation of a “National Energy Council” within the White House to ensure implementation of the plan across the Executive Branch (similar to the existing Energy Secretary, Transportation Secretary, EPA Administrator, and Agricultural Secretary combined energy-focused roles[16]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escientist (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably create a brief summary under each candidate's (e.g. Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 Wikipedia entry - create sub-heading under 'Energy policy'. You can a short entry giving a list of links to each campaign policy under energy policy of the United States. Remember to reference direct quotes and not hearsay or refashioned summaries.Dymonite (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to fill up this article with each candidates proposal would be just a lot of hot air. Better to just say that many of the candidates have proposals. One of the candidates was a former energy secretary, I think, and has now dropped out. And all but two or three of the main candidates will be of course dropping out before November. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is why there's a policy called "No Original Research"

an editor added the following to the article: "The actual cost of a gallon of gas is less than a dollar in 2008,^{[citation needed]}"

ignoring for the moment that it's totally inappropriate to add new material and immediately fact tag it yourself - unsourced material should never be added to the encyclopedia - this is an example of original research failed on a colossal level.

1. a simple review of current news shows that crude oil is currently around $90 per barrel. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5TtajgUpSm7KY5jf-lCJGHBB-tAD8UCV6A81
2. simple math: $90 for 42 gallons of crude oil equals $2.14 per gallon of crude oil
3. a barrel of crude oil, after refining, yields a gross average of 19.5 gallons of gasoline. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm
4. the cost of refining is substantial, though i don't have handy figures for that, so we'll just leave our data there - the actual cost of gasoline cannot possibly be less than the cost of the raw material used to produce it, which is $2.14 a gallon, or more than double the unsourced assertion plugged into the public encyclopedia.

please: don't speculate. don't publish opinion. publish verifiable facts in the public encyclopedia. leave the original research - like mine above - in article talk space, where it can be blasted to smithereens without misinforming some random person on the net who happens to read the nonsense published. Anastrophe (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't use the word that comes to mind (it rhymes with never mind), but saying that oil "costs" $90 per barrel fails to recognize the difference between cost and price. Cost is what it costs to produce something. Saudi crude costs less than $1 per barrel. It doesn't require any pumping to get it out of the ground and it flows by gravity to the ships. Price is what you sell it for, and in the case of oil is solely determined by supply and demand. Reduce the demand for oil, artificially by recognizing that burning it is criminal, or naturally by developing cheaper alternatives (electric cars get 200 mpg), and the price of gasoline would plummet to less than $1/gallon. The idea behind the Iraq war for many was to reduce gas prices to 10 cents a gallon. Guess how well that worked. You are grossly wrong on yield - yield can vary from 5% to 95% depending on what the refinery wants to get out of it. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. There is nothing wrong with writing a paragraph and letting someone else go find the references for you and vice versa. The cost of refining is about 30 cents a gallon by the way.[17] 199.125.109.98 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"there is nothing wrong with writing a paragraph and letting someone else go find the references for you and vice versal". wrong. see WP:V. the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to add something. you've repeated added unsourced assertions that are factually incorrect. your irrelevant speculations and commentary above are noted, but have nothing to do with avoiding putting original research into articles. oh - and i don't know where you heard the fairy tale that oil in saudi arabia requires no pumping and 'flows by gravity to the ships', but it's just that - a fairy tale. this article is about energy policy of the united states. stick to reliable sources, don't push your opinion or original research into the article, and we can have a dandy collaborative effort. Anastrophe (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. "The crude-oil tank farm is on a bluff approximately 350 ft above sea level. This permits the oil to flow by gravity from the tanks through the shore-control manifold and submarine pipelines and loading hoses to five tanker berths about a mile offshore."[18] So if the person who told me that no pumping was required was exaggerating. How about this, little pumping is required. Doesn't change the cost much. It is still a whole lot less than $1/bbl. Correct me if I am wrong but we get the second biggest percentage of our oil from the folks who wrecked the World Trade Center buildings. Now who would that be? 199.125.109.98 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

your source discusses one aspect of oil distribution in saudi arabia. and lets not forget, your source is fifty years old. most of the ghawar oil goes out to terminals in the persian gulf, not through the trans arabia pipeline. you'll note the map that shows all the auxiliary pumping stations along the pipeline - but i guess those don't count? the oil has to be pumped out of the ghawar field just like any other oil field, and that also involves pumping gargantuan volumes of sea water into the ground to keep pressure up, as the field depletes. again, your speculations of what it costs to produce the oil are irrelevant. this article is about energy policy of the united states. your personal opinions are inappropriate to the talk page, which is reserved for discussing the article. you're not going to succeed in drawing me into a discussion of your political beliefs. again, publish material using reliable sources that say what you claim they say (unlike, for example, your repeated claims that oil costs $4 a gallon in california, which are false and not supported by the sources you cite), leave the original research out of the article, and leave your political opinions out of the article, and let's get back to editing an encyclopedia, not an advocacy site. Anastrophe (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that oil, or gasoline, costs $4 a gallon in California, although it does in at least one location in California.[19] What I did say is that in Europe gasoline sold for $4/gallon long before it reached $4/gallon in the United States. And I backed it up with a reference which states that California is bracing for $4/gallon prices in 2008. I think you may be missing the forest for the trees. I have no political opinion on the issue. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 100 mpg

It hardly seems likely that the USDOE will allow including solar panel energy production in the EPA mileage ratings, even though they will add up to 30%, or more, to your mileage. From the reference, "Honda is currently winning the hybrid image war in Japan with the tiny Insight coupe, which manages 102 mpg in Japan's standard fuel cycle. The Prius is just a whisker behind at 99 mpg (35 km/l). But now comes news that Toyota is determined to hit 40 km/l (113 mpg) with the next Prius. Of course, these are Japanese fuel-economy figures, which will not translate directly to real-world driving conditions in the U.S." It would be wise to wait for EPA estimates to quote mileage figures. 100 mpg seems just a bit far fetched, and plugging in a hybrid and saying that you are getting 175 mpg is cheating. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, those are bullshit ratings, probably extrapolated from putting a car on a stand and reading its fuel consumption with no wind resistance. Apparently the Japanese market has even more liberty in padding their numbers than the EPA. Anything over 60 doesn't have much meaning anyway. The difference in actual fuel consumed between 120mpg and 60mpg is less than the difference between 15mpg and 20 mpg.--Loodog (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. Actually, the difference between 120 mpg and 60 mpg is more like the difference between 15 mpg and 17 mpg - 125 gallons per year per car. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of drilling in the U.S.

I find it interesting that there is no mention of increased drilling and refining oil in the United States as an alternative solution to energy independence. Shouldn't this be included in an article on energy independence? Jamie1974 (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

this isn't an article on energy independence. you might be thinking of the Energy development article. Anastrophe (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you! Jamie1974 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move of article

I've moved the article from Energy policy of the United States to Energy policy in the United States. If you disagree, let me know, and if consensus is against me, I'll move it back myself. Thanks! I'm trying to make all the US policy pages consistent, and eventually make a "US policy" template to include monetary, foreign, fiscal, agricultural, social, etc... johnpseudo 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please move it back immediately. See Category:Energy policy by country. Energy policy "in" the United States is a very poor name. I can sort of see what you were thinking of when I look at Template:United States topics, but bear in mind that you have individual activity such as agriculture, politics, etc. "in" a country, but governmental decisions (i.e. policy) "of" a country. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just be called energy in the United States? Perhaps there should be a more specific article on policy, if there is need for one, but a more general article is what I would expect to find. Instead I'm redirected here. Richard001 (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The scope of this article has crept beyond the bounds of its title

This article seems to detail everything energy-related in the United States. It talks about how energy is used, who uses it, how much, where it comes from, how that has changed... All of this belongs in Energy use in the United States and is incidental to the topic of this article: Energy Policy. I plan on working to cut out some of this and merge it into Energy use in the United States, but if you can help, please do. johnpseudo 19:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why Fuss

It seems that you are splitting hairs-- Energy Use VS. Energy Policy. Policy begets use. Please do not alter article. Copy it into "Energy Use" but do not arbitrarily cut policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)