3 ms·

> Why on earth did they frame this as a "bailout for big oil"? Because that is exactly what it is. You're talking about the largest companies in the world, the

> Why on earth did they frame this as a "bailout for big oil"? Because that is exactly what it is. You're talking about the largest companies in the world, they've have decades and decades of war and subsidy supporting them. They don't need more support now, especially considering the environmental destruction they cause. Now is a much better time to push forward higher quality energy production technology like solar, wind, batteries, etc.

leetcrew 7y ago
why would now, while we're in the midst of a public health crisis and the ensuing economic turmoil, be a good time to radically change our energy infrastructure to something that still has a higher unit cost? I can obviously see that, politically, now is a good opportunity to push agendas that would otherwise not be accepted, but does that really make it a good time overall?
- makomk 7y ago
  It's not a good time at all. Even if you put the cost and reliability problems aside for a moment, the entire planet's supply chains are massively disrupted and largely shut down. Plus, even if you could get the equipment manufactured, installing it is a health hazard right now - it means lots of people from all over the place in close quarters on sites with poor access to sanitation facilities. This will set back green energy a year at the very minimum.
- reportingsjr 7y ago
  Lower pollution energies only have a higher unit cost due to insane subsidies that oil/gas/coal receive. Now is a great time to ramp up cleaner technologies since people are going to be looking for jobs anyways once this ends. Much better to advance technology when we are fixing our economy versus propping up old, unhealthy means.
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
Yes. But just like various items in demand now ( ventilators, masks and so on ), it is not a bad idea to have a strategic reserve of those for those times when they would be necessary. I am a alternative energy proponent, but it seems misguided to simply ignore current situation and not take steps beneficial to the taxpayer ( buy stuff while it is cheap ). The other side of the argument appears to want to cause maximum amount of pain to force people to move to the other sources. I understand that argument. I do not really buy it. National stockpile should not be subject to that. It serves a strategic purpose. edit: added not before take
- reportingsjr 7y ago
  The national reserves are already significantly full. There isn't a huge need to absolutely fill them to the rim considering their size.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Sure there is. Top them off at record low prices and be done with it. Then there won’t be much argument to keep them full. Why build it to the storage capacity it has if we’re not going to fill it?
briandear 7y ago
Now is the worst time. Millions are losing their jobs, the last thing we need is to promote more expensive energy. A steady supply of energy right now is critical to literally keeping the lights on. Imagine our current situation but with more expensive energy costs and an unreliable supply. Like it our not, oil is critical to our survival right now. Cheap, plentiful energy is also going to be essential to driving the recovery. It’s also a strategic necessity.

leetcrew 7y ago

why would now, while we're in the midst of a public health crisis and the ensuing economic turmoil, be a good time to radically change our energy infrastructure to something that still has a higher unit cost? I can obviously see that, politically, now is a good opportunity to push agendas that would otherwise not be accepted, but does that really make it a good time overall?

makomk 7y ago
It's not a good time at all. Even if you put the cost and reliability problems aside for a moment, the entire planet's supply chains are massively disrupted and largely shut down. Plus, even if you could get the equipment manufactured, installing it is a health hazard right now - it means lots of people from all over the place in close quarters on sites with poor access to sanitation facilities. This will set back green energy a year at the very minimum.
reportingsjr 7y ago
Lower pollution energies only have a higher unit cost due to insane subsidies that oil/gas/coal receive. Now is a great time to ramp up cleaner technologies since people are going to be looking for jobs anyways once this ends. Much better to advance technology when we are fixing our economy versus propping up old, unhealthy means.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago

Yes. But just like various items in demand now ( ventilators, masks and so on ), it is not a bad idea to have a strategic reserve of those for those times when they would be necessary. I am a alternative energy proponent, but it seems misguided to simply ignore current situation and not take steps beneficial to the taxpayer ( buy stuff while it is cheap ). The other side of the argument appears to want to cause maximum amount of pain to force people to move to the other sources. I understand that argument. I do not really buy it. National stockpile should not be subject to that. It serves a strategic purpose. edit: added not before take

reportingsjr 7y ago
The national reserves are already significantly full. There isn't a huge need to absolutely fill them to the rim considering their size.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Sure there is. Top them off at record low prices and be done with it. Then there won’t be much argument to keep them full. Why build it to the storage capacity it has if we’re not going to fill it?

briandear 7y ago

Now is the worst time. Millions are losing their jobs, the last thing we need is to promote more expensive energy. A steady supply of energy right now is critical to literally keeping the lights on. Imagine our current situation but with more expensive energy costs and an unreliable supply. Like it our not, oil is critical to our survival right now. Cheap, plentiful energy is also going to be essential to driving the recovery. It’s also a strategic necessity.