15 ms·
> FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural
by jdc0589 10y ago
> FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the
production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of
job-producing American energy reserves,
including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal
This is what I have the biggest problem with. The ONLY WAY we are going to continue making progress towards widespread clean renewable energy is if it is financially beneficial for corporations to continue investing in R&D. Sure, there are some outliers that will stick with it on principal, but the majority will go where the money is. Cheaper fossil fuels == less investment in renewable energy. Period. This is bad timing given the critical point we are at (so far as we know) regarding climate change.
This is pure short-sightedness motivated by the desire to deliver on his promise of creating jobs.
- fisherjeff 10y agoIn addition to that, I'm not sure what the benefit is to energy producers - oil prices are already not far above a 15-year low and domestic crude production is at a 25-year high, currently almost 10% of global consumption. Even without subsidies or other incentives, I just can't see where the demand comes from to drive significant oil supply increases. I'm genuinely curious what the restrictions are that are throttling our energy industry.
- knz 10y ago> I'm genuinely curious what the restrictions are that are throttling our energy industry. "Environmental regulation". Who needs clean air or water. Superfunds Sites are cheap to clean up right?
- sp332 10y agoSuperfund sites are expensive, and that's exactly why they're great for the economy.
- chris11 10y agoI don't know exactly, but there are probably oil reserves in places like Alaska that would be cheaper to extract if it were allowed.
- fisherjeff 10y agoThat's my guess too, but large numbers of new drilling sites - especially remote ones - would drive up costs while simultaneously helping to keep per-barrel prices low. Just sounds like a terrible ROI to me.
- chris11 10y agoWell, I don't really expect this to cause oil extraction costs to go up. I don't think companies would waste money choosing more expensive drilling sites. But this could also signal an attack on local regulations too. It would make a big difference if local fracking bans were made illegal. Texas did that.
- fisherjeff 10y agoYeah, I don't see an effect on extraction costs, I was just talking about the significant up-front capex costs in what looks to be a historically slack market. Very interesting thought regarding local regulations; hadn't considered something like that at a federal level. It does also occur to me that this could just be a convenient way to make the opening up of large amounts of protected lands more palatable to the general public.
- stcredzero 10y agoThe fact that the term "clean coal" can be bandied about with a straight face says something about the state of science education of the general public. (Pretty much the same knowledge needed to instantly realize that various wind/solar operated water-from-air devices and Solar Freakin Roadways aren't viable from back of the envelope calcs.)
- leephillips 10y ago“Sunlight is abundant beyond the energy needs of the entire human race”. (Los Alamos National Laboratory [http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/1663/2015-may/perovskite-power.php http://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/1663/2015-may/pero...].) This is their back of the envelope calculation.
- supergarfield 10y agoI don't think this is a reflection on the amount of usable sunlight on that hits the surface of the earth. It sounds more like a vague, general statement and isn't backed by calculations in the article. The late Professor McKay (whose book on information theory and ML is neat by the way) published a great book full of climate back of the envelope calculations, Whithout the Hot Air, which is available online[1]. He clearly disagrees with this statement, as seen in the recap figure on page 103[2]. [1] http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html [2] http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml http://www.withouthotair.com/c18/page_103.shtml
- toomuchtodo 10y agohttp://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf "This theoretical potential represents more energy striking the earth’s surface in one and a half hours (480 EJ) than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ)." Not back of envelope. Energy calculations worked through.
- 10y ago
- danblick 10y agoAmerica has enough shale oil to be a net energy exporter, which means no more dealing with Venezuela or need for huge defense spending to protect strategic resources across the world. So I dunno, I can see why developing those resources might be in our interest.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago>> which means no more dealing with Venezuela or need for huge defense spending to protect strategic resources across the world. The problem is that we HAD energy independence when we discovered oil in the Bakken Peninsula and what happened? Our fearless leaders who wanted to be energy independent had a great chance to tell OPEC to go screw themselves and what happened? They let them go to war with OPEC. We lost jobs, oil companies shut down in droves as the race to the bottom happened. OPEC said it wanted to put them out of business and for the most part, the people in Washington talking big about energy independence let it happen. I have no faith they will ever keep their word. We had a wonderful opportunity and they let OPEC drive our companies out of business and cost that region thousands of jobs. And in the process, drive up the cost of oil as well.
- ch4s3 10y agoOil is traded internationally, no matter how much we produce, its still part of a global market.
- eveningcoffee 10y agoIf you are energy independent then you can screw the international market. If you can server yourself then you do not have to dance by the music of other producers. Unless of course you want to play some other game altogether.
- rthille 10y agoSure, but if the people who own the oil can sell it outside the country for more they will. So the price/demand outside still matters. Unless you're planning on making it illegal to export?
- agumonkey 10y agoIf fracking issues are real, all the potential diseased persons will also free houses and jobs too. How do you like that smart.
- gshulegaard 10y agoI don't know: > THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated. Is scariest to me given a Republican controlled Congress. The one sided control makes me nervous.
- zanny 10y agoThis document contradicts that every other sentence after that. Almost all the bills he proposes are regulations, the executive orders... regulations. He proposes to overturn about a quarter as many things as he wants made law or executive order.
- pdonis 10y agoCongress doesn't write federal regulations. Executive branch agencies do, within very broad guidelines that Congress has put in the statutes empowering those agencies. A lot of what Trump is proposing here can be done without any Congressional action at all; it's just a matter of changing the priorities of the agencies who write the regulations. Of course, doing that is a much, much bigger job than I think Trump realizes.
- novalis78 10y agoThis is fantastic. That's exactly how it should be. Otherwise over decades you end up with regulations that stifle all forms of entrepreneurship and creativity.
- nihonde 10y agoWhat is a unit of "regulation"? I can pack five thousand onerous rules into one document and eliminate two documents that contain guidance with very minor impact. Is that a net gain?
- good_gnu 10y agoAnd in this way you end up with 0 regulations, which I assume we are supposed to consider a feature, not a bug?
- 10y ago
- einrealist 10y agoThis is a declaration of war.
- totalZero 10y ago....maybe if you're a solar panel.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoOr the planet's ecosystem.
- rocqua 10y agoThat and >FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.” are the 2 most scary things on that first page. I really like his limitations on lobbying though. I hope they aren't too ham-fisted and easy to get around.
- gizmo385 10y agoWouldn't those lobbying regulations (blocking federal employees from lobbying) violate the first amendment? Wouldn't that deny an entire political class of people from being able to participate in the political process?
- ghufran_syed 10y agoI assume any such law wouldn't block their speech, just their ability to receive money in exchange for that service
- zanny 10y agoExcept under Citizens United money is speech. How is this supposed to not conflict with that decision, unless they mean to clarify Citizens United is that only corporate personhood can use money as speech?
- hdctambien 10y agoMoney is speech
- jdc0589 10y agoobviously I am not a supreme court justice, but its not limiting speech or expression. It is explicitly preventing what many people consider to be a gross conflict of interest. It's post-fact in a way, but its still messed up.
- tn13 10y agoI am not sure that makes sense. We dont have to hurt the oil industry to help innovation. We dont have to hurt ordinary cars to help self driving cars popular.
- jaza 10y agoAgreed - this will probably be the Trump administration action that has the worst long-term impact of all. The US might as well not bother turning up to the next global climate change summit (not that Trump will anyway). Unfortunately, though, the whole world will pay the price of increased US environmental contamination during this era.
- theptip 10y agoAgreed, this is the definition of short-sightedness. And the difficult part is that it's likely to produce a significant (short-term) boost to the economy. Subsequent generations will have to pay back the principal on this loan, with interest. And we will lose our opportunity to carve out a leadership position in the energy technologies of the 21st century, as well.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoI just came out of an energy company job, and you're outta luck. There's nothing in the energy sector to make me think they'll innovate unless they stumble into it. Now, certain people might be able to sidle into energy but it'll be pretty rough going. I was simply trying to buck up '80s-'90s era control systems to stop breaking things and this was perceived as "they're takin' 'er jerbs." Nothing was understood. My interpretation is that there is considerable willful ignorance of how technology might be used in that sector that will never be broken. You're threatening people's identity if you do. Just thorough testing ( at least to my lights what is thorough - I have 30+ years safety-and-life-crticial realtime embedded experience) was seen with a jaundiced eye. A "real oil guy" does it on a laptop on the jobsite. The rest of your post is spot on. However, at least natural gas will be deadly cheap for the forseeable future. We had one project to try to capture flare gas, but it cost (much) more than the captured gas will ever be worth.
- jdc0589 10y ago> I just came out of an energy company job, and you're outta luck. There's nothing in the energy sector to make me think they'll innovate unless they stumble into it. I don't think it only affects the existing members of the energy sector. Given the necessary financial motivation, there is a realistic opportunity for new competition in the renewable energy market rather than only relying on existing stablished companies to shift focus. Even if a group wants to move in to the renewable energy market on principal, funding will be a lot harder to come by with super cheap fossil fuel prices since investors (who are also motivated by money) won't see as much potential for short term profits.
- ArkyBeagle 10y agoIN the '60s/70, oil companies were mainly just companies that happened to do things oil-related. After the '84 crash, the character of those companies changed dramatically. I don't know if that's inherent to that market or just a temporary phenomenon. If it is inherent, then that makes for a barrier to entry.
- slicktux 10y agoWell, that is not to say that states cannot implement their own environmental laws, take for example California. . .the fact that Trump 'will' lift "$50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal. . ." does not mean that the states cannot take action; I know it is perceived as for the better if the environmental laws are uniformed throughout the states, but please let us not forget about state rights, 10th Amendment. If you, or whoever reads this comment, is really concerned about the environment than start focusing on individual and local changes; like in California; become a leader, propagate new technology that is good for the environment, and then the rest will follow the example of progressive states, as well as, progressive individuals. Don't sell your self short; Roll up the sleeves and get to work. . .no need for Federal Government Regulations; Limit The Federal Government Not The People.
- AnthonyMouse 10y agoThe problem is if West Virginia burns coal that causes air pollution and sea level rise in New York, New York can't pass a law against burning coal in West Virginia. Federal laws are needed when a state is externalizing costs and internalizing profits.
- slicktux 10y agoLook we can go back and forward and at the end we are both right. . .example, I can say that we doing something about our environment does not make a difference because of countries like China and India's pollution make it over the pacific into our environment. . .
- AnthonyMouse 10y agoThe mechanism for dealing with this between countries is by signing treaties. The mechanism for dealing with this between US states is by passing federal laws.
- tropo 10y agoThe same goes for the world. If we don't burn the stuff, the price will go down. Some other country will burn it. We might as well have a nice economy while the world burns. There is no stopping this train.
- postcarnival 10y agohow do we know that "clean energy" hasn't been artificially propped up to begin with? if we can burn coal much cleaner and more efficiently then so what? let's do it if it's cheaper. We can still develop new technologies, that won't stop regardless.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- prostoalex 10y ago> Cheaper fossil fuels == less investment in renewable energy. Period. Does it have to be US investment? Some other countries (China, Israel, South Korea) have a greater urgency to diversify into clean energy. Why can't the US ride the coattails of that research the way other countries benefit from cheap solar panels and affordable electric cars developed and produced elsewhere?
- BurningFrog 10y agoBut these are global problems, and if the US unilaterally refuses to make money off of oil while the rest of the world keeps pumping, the biggest effect will be income and jobs leaving the country.