Talk:Energy policy of the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial comments[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

What policy?[edit]

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.[reply]

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

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Some Edits??[edit]

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).[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

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

Further complexity section and OR tag[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Public Opinion Section[edit]

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)[reply]

Too speculative[edit]

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)[reply]

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

chart[edit]

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)[reply]

2008 Update[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Energy Consumption[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The word is flout. --Teratornis (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thomas.gov[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

reminder to stay on point[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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:

editor's note: removed very long summary of a pdf per WP:OR

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Escientist (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

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

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)[reply]

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.[2] 199.125.109.98 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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."[3] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did not say that oil, or gasoline, costs $4 a gallon in California, although it does in at least one location in California.[4] 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)[reply]

100 mpg[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See Hypermiling. Drivers skilled in the technique can substantially increase their fuel economy from production vehicles, but of course the average driver doesn't drive that way, and on heavily-traveled roads the hypermiler will conflict with the large number of wasteful drivers. --Teratornis (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, Thank you! Jamie1974 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand off shore drilling is a hot but meaningless US policy topic at the moment. It's meaningless because allowing offshore drilling will lower gas prices by 4 cents a gallon ten years from now, when gas is selling at $10/gallon, and have no other effect. On the other hand, requiring plug-in cars and developing wind and solar power will eliminate the demand for oil and drop gas prices in 10 years to $1/gallon (gas prices are set by supply and demand - you can not increase the supply, but you can remove the demand). 199.125.109.134 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move of article[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Energy in is a separate topic, and that article has now been created. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Why Fuss[edit]

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)[reply]

Errors in Numbers listed[edit]

While reading this article I've run across a number of errors regarding the amount of energy produced by the various forms of renewable and nuclear energy. I started researching proper numbers but don't feel like completing this myself.

Article states that Nuclear energy produces 97000 MW of power, which it states is 20% of the US consumption. The article states earlier that 14% was supplied by both Nuclear and Renewable combined

Article states that Hydro supplies 300000 MW of power, thus three times nuclear and yet the article states that renewable as a whole supplies only 6%. There is a source listed after this sentence which does not contain the 300000 MW figure. The source cited does not actually support this number. Actually it appears to be an article supporting solar power and mostly irrelevant.

Article states that wind power supplies a peak 18000 MW yet then states that in 2008 wind produced 48 billion kWh which averages to roughly 5500 MW. This isn't actually a contradiction since 18000 MW is listed as "peak", but it is quite misleading to the reader.

The best and most impartial source that I can find is here http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html

But even it seems to conflict with other reports found online.

I'm rather new to wikipedia. I don't feel that I have the information or confidence to add correct information. Yet I also don't want to take down everything as that would leave a rather empty section. So my solution is to post here hoping that the more experienced and dedicated among us will step up. I would caution any user from taking numbers from the site that I have listed above and entering them into wikipedia because as I have mentioned I have found other conflicting reports. Unfortunately both Nuclear and Renewable Energy tend to be targets of rather emotional and possibly biased researchers.

Thanks everyone,

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrocklin (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Capacity factor to understand how nameplate capacity ratings relate to annual energy output for various sources of electrical power. Onshore wind farms typically have capacity factors between 20% and 40%; hydroelectric plants are a little higher, and nuclear and coal plants are around 80% to 90%. However, the capacity factor for an intermittent power source is to some extent an engineering design choice. For example, to increase the capacity factor of a wind turbine, you can combine a big rotor with a small generator. This creates an optimization problem, as the wind farm operator would like to maintain a steady output, but also wants to generate maximum power (and thus revenue) during the windiest periods. A wind turbine with a large generator can extract more power from the strongest winds, but at other times when the wind doesn't blow as hard, the wind turbine produces well below its nameplate capacity.
With hydroelectric plants, the capacity factor may be deliberately low, because the dispatchability of hydroelectric power makes it highly desirable for load balancing on the grid. Thus a hydroelectric dam may have a much larger generating capacity than the average flow of water into the reservoir can support. This allows the dam to produce lots of electricity during the day, when electric demand is high and so are electricity spot prices, then throttle back at night when demand is low, letting the reservoir top back up. --Teratornis (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidies[edit]

Calculating subsidies in dollars per megawatt hours is total BS. "It should be noted that subsidy per megawatt hour are a function of the amount of electricity produced. Solar and wind have produced little electricity to date, and clean coal almost none." So let's say each of the following, coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind and clean coal have all received the same $10 billion subsidy (they haven't). Dividing that $10 billion by the megawatts produced by each gives the subsidy per megawatt hour, and since clean coal has produced none, and solar and wind almost none, of course these three artificially look like they are receiving the greatest subsidy. Without the quoted caveat the entire section must be deleted, as it is totally misleading. By the way it was "from an editorial" anyway, and clearly not usable. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Measuging subsides in dollars per megawatt hour is the only way that makes sense. Editorials are legitimate sources if they come from respectable sources, which the Wall. St. Journal certainly is. Wikipedia rules say you can be bold. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, editorials can only be used to explain what someones opinion is. For example, if you write an editorial, we can use it to explain what your view is. But it has to be relevant to the article. Editorials can never be used as a reference for statements of fact. Just how you ask the question skews the results. I remember seeing a curve showing the development of any technology showing cost vs. volume - at first the cost is very high, and actually gets higher as the infrastructure is developed, then starts to fall rapidly as the volume increases. Taking a slice of the curve and expressing it as $/MWh is very wrong because it fails to include where you are on the development curve, and what your total investment has been. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Energy Independence[edit]

American Energy Independence was proposed as an external link by User:EnergyIndependence (talk/contrib), and was moved here for discussion as it appears to be a blatant COI. Any opinions on including the URL? 199.125.109.134 (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links are generally inferior to footnotes. --Teratornis (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Emissions[edit]

Regarding the part: "Some states, however, are much more prolific polluters than others. The state of Texas produces approximately 1.5 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide yearly, more than every nation in the world except six: the United States, China, Russia, Japan, India, and Germany.[1]"

Would it not be more correct to write "except five: China, Russia, Japan, India, and Germany" since Texas can never produce more than The United States? I know it is more or less a word for word quote from the article, but the wording seems odd and it is easy to imply that since Texas is part of The US, the US is also in that region, if that is what they reached for.

NiklasBr (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what that has to do with energy policy. Did the US ratify Kyoto and I missed the news? 199.125.109.134 (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Borenstein, Seth (04-06-2007). "Blame Coal: Texas Leads in Overall Emissions". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-06-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The immediate future[edit]

The following was removed with the edit summary, rv poorly spelled OR.[5] Actually the spelling had already been corrected, and the OR removed, leaving a pretty obvious statement:

The nation's energy will continue to come from a mix of sources. In the future the mix will increase the amount of renewable energy and decrease the reliance on fossil fuels. Conservation and technological improvements will reduce the total energy demand. Simple things like improved gas mileage, to the range of 45 mpg (5.2 l/100km), will halve fuel use.

I really don't see anything controversial there. We know that wind power and solar power are increasing rapidly, thus decreasing the reliance on fossil fuels, we know that CFLs are replacing incandescents (a technological improvement), we know that anytime prices go up people conserve more, and we know that in the near term our fleet mileage will double (not quadruple, as had been suggested). There is an X-prize to develop a 100 mpg car, but the EV1 knocked that ten years ago, as it got the equivalent of 200 mpg. Volkswagen also has a prototype that gets 235 mpg, which they say they will be releasing next year (so why is there a prize for something that has already been done?). Thinking that everyone with an Escalade or Navigator is going to trade it in for an 80 mpg car is not realistic. Doubling the fleet mileage is. My recollection is that the current fleet mileage in the United States is about 22.5 mpg. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that doubling fleet fuel economy would halve fuel use. Without a corresponding increase in fuel prices, drivers might use the savings to drive more. Until the oil price increases in 2008, total miles driven had increased in the U.S. every year since the 1970s. As far as why there is a prize for something that has already been done, there are all sorts of things that haven't quite been done. For example, producing a high-mileage vehicle that stands up to the average driver. See the Hypermiling article - it is already possible to roughly double the fuel economy of the existing fleet simply by adopting the most efficient driving habits. But this would require retraining all drivers and persuading them to give up the sensations of abrupt acceleration and so on. It is not easy to build a car that reliably gets 100 MPG when driven by the typical U.S. driver and subjected to the usual spotty maintenance. Such cars will have to be very small, very light, and probably very sluggish. In short, completely the opposite of what the automobile industry has brainwashed the public to want in an automobile after years of advertisements and product placements in movies, etc. Not to mention that the "feel" of power probably appeals to human sociobiology especially in the coveted young male demographic. The only thing that could make drivers want highly efficient cars would (probably) be years of sustained high fuel prices such as all the historically oil-importing nations have maintained. The U.S. is very unusual in that it is the world's largest oil importer, but with remarkably low fuel taxes. This is an unfortunate vestige of the U.S. having been self-sufficient in petroleum from the 1860s to the 1940s, and only during the 1970s did the oil imports increase to dangerous levels. Now the U.S. imports more oil than any other country and yet the U.S. has not phased in fuel taxes similar to those in the other large oil-importing countries (Japan, Germany, etc.). --Teratornis (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1.26% solution[edit]

"wind power capacity was 25,170 MW, which is enough to serve 7 million average households. The American Wind Energy Association has reported that wind projects installed through to the end of 2008 generated 52 million megawatt-hours (MWh), representing 1.26% of the nation’s electricity in 2008, or enough electricity for some 7 million households." Is this a contradiction, or is wind power only working an average of about 5.5 hours a day...? John H. Watson, MD don't be obtuse, Holmes 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hum...you seem to be right. Another possibility is that the capacity was much greater at the end of the year then it was in the beginning. Save monkey love 4 me (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would take the meaning to be "total generated for 2008", so a sudden peak would be contra-indicated, IMO. Especially what looks like such a big one. Spock I heard that 14:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not explicitly state a time frame that the 52 million mwh were generated. Another explanation is that the 52 million megawatt-hours were generated over 86 days. Save monkey love 4 me (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it doesn't expressly say so, & allowing for some increase (as implied), it may've peaked at 52M. Nevertheless, there'd need to be about a doubling, & that's a lot of capacity to build & get in service in less than 12mo. Montgomery Scott beam yourself up 15:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

broken links[edit]

In addition to first first external link not working[6], the following refs have broken links: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]

Also [23] is being used as a source, and source [24] is protected by username/password. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I put the username protected link up there, when it didn't used to be protected. I've found an alternative source that should do the job.--Louiedog (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gas tax etc ... resource[edit]

How Can America Improve Its Energy Future? Michael Liebreich calls for rules that boost competition and smarter subsidies for new technologies. David Rocks advocates increasing the gas tax October 13, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT by David Rocks a Bloomberg Businessweek senior editor. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Liebreich and David Rocks is a Bloomberg Businessweek senior editor. 99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resource[edit]

Review by William Nordhaus in Nybooks.com October 27, 2011 Vol. LVIII, Number 16 page 29-31 Energy: Friend or Enemy? of ...

  • The End of Energy: The Unmaking of America’s Environment, Security, and Independence MIT Press by Michael J. Graetz, a professor of tax law at Columbia University and was at the Yale Law School for almost twenty-five years before that. He also was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for tax policy in 1990–1991.
  • Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use, a report by the National Research Council’s Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption; National Academies Press, free at www.nap.edu ... excerpt

    electricity generated from coal has an estimated external cost of 70 percent of its market price. Petroleum (oil) is used primarily for automotive fuels, and its social costs are one quarter of the price of gasoline. ... In supplying energy, coal costs only one tenth as much as oil, ... A second feature is that burning coal is very dirty, releasing both conventional pollutants and greenhouse gases. Per unit of energy, coal emits 27 percent more CO2 than oil and 78 percent more CO2 than natural gas. So if we include a charge for climate change, this would lead to a relatively large penalty for coal. In the aggregate, the emissions of CO2 from coal-fired electricity- generating facilities are the largest single industrial source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. They make up one third of all emissions in an industry that constitutes only about one half of one percent of the US economy! ... Handing out tens of billions of dollars in subsidies annually is far more seductive to politicians.” And many of these subsidies mainly serve as tax shelters. Graetz quotes Congressman Pete Stark: “They’re not wind farms; they are tax farms.”

See Environmental impact of coal mining and burning, Carbon pricing, and Pigovian tax. 99.56.120.237 (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Climate change policy of the United States. 99.19.47.214 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add Portal:Renewable energy[edit]

Add {{Portal box|Renewable energy}} 141.218.36.147 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Renewable energy policy of the United States would belong in that portal, not this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics. Energy policy includes, or should obviously include renewables. The Renewables Portal is about Energy in production and usable energy generation. The Energy Portal has some Energy policy related information, but some information is not useful. So, the former is entirely related, and the later is partially related, but certainly related. Include both portals to cover the topics. Problem solved. 141.218.36.147 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Related, but not relevant. It was my mistake, earlier, in saying that the concepts weren't related. "Related" is transitive; "relevant" is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. For example, note that American Civil War has a link to the Portal:US, but not a link to Portal:Virginia. Furthermore, Portal:Energy already has a link to Portal: Renewable energy, which is sufficient for this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential resources ... On the front lines of the power grid 26.Oct.2011 New York Times[edit]

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink to External Link of ISEA — Database of U.S. International Energy Agreements[edit]

ISEA is The EESI Climate Action Database (CAD) of Energy and Environmental Security Initiative" 99.35.14.164 (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include Climate change policy of the United States wikilink.[edit]

Include Climate change policy of the United States wikilink. 99.19.46.34 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me; anyone else object? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds appropriate to me. 99.56.120.249 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show wp "lock" on this article.[edit]

Please show wp "lock" on this article. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential resource[edit]

potential resource[edit]

Would EPA air-pollution rules lead to massive blackouts? Feds weigh in. "Energy-industry groups said that new EPA air-pollution rules could threaten the reliability of the American power grid. The Energy Department countered that claim with its own report Thursday." by Mark Clayton csmonitor.com December 1, 2011

99.181.141.143 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Energy policy of the United States[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Energy policy of the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EIA":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oil and gas export restrictions/policy (material needed)[edit]

The question of federal policy on the export of oil and gas is becoming a topic of debate, which the article should cover.

Exports were restricted (especially exports of petroleum) in the wake of the oil shocks of the 1970s. Relevant legislation is contained in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, and the Export Administration Act of 1979. [25].

With new quantities of U.S. oil and gas now coming onstream from fracking, many of the oil majors are pushing for the 1970s restrictions to be relaxed. [26] [27].

In the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade negotiations, the European Union is also pushing the U.S. to lift its restrictions, to help the EU reduce its heavy dependence on Russian energy. The U.S. has so far reserved its position. [28] [29] [30] [31]

Opponents make objections that opening U.S. supply to worldwide demand would raise energy prices in the U.S. to the benefit of producers rather then consumers; would faster deplete a finite U.S. natural resource; and (in the EU) would make it easy for the EU to continue on a carbon-based energy path, rather than being forced to pursue energy-efficiency and alternative energy.

Oil and gas export (and export restrictions) therefore seems like a topic the article should cover, if anyone has the time to do a little more research for the relevant sources. Jheald (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New page to be linked[edit]

Hello, I recently created a page with some classmates called 21st Century Fossil Fuel Regulations in the United States that I think would be good linked to this page, thanks! Hmthorner (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_policy_of_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1150598809"