State Funding?

Everything Wyoming Cowboy and Mountain West football!
User avatar
LanderPoke
WyoNation Lifer
Posts: 11160
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 8:47 pm
Location: Laramie
Has liked: 586 times
Been liked: 236 times

FJB
OrediggerPoke
Bronco-Buster
Posts: 6113
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:57 am
Has liked: 52 times
Been liked: 213 times

ragtimejoe1 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 9:55 am The environmentalists (perhaps funded in part by Russia) have messed up our energy system. The current green technologies simply can't meet demand and are not sustainable from an input standpoint (lithium, etc.). Trying to immediately transition from stable fossil fuels to non-existent technology might be the dumbest thing in the history of mankind unless you are Russia selling fossil fuels to the countries banning or inhibiting fossil fuel production.

At this point, for national security, it might be time to visit the concept of public investment in private development to stabilize fuel production, fertilizer production, microchip production, etc. That is starting at a snails pace and needs to be ramped up immediately.

We haven't even seen the full inflation fallout from this mess. Wait until you see food prices this fall. Much of the current food market was grown with pre-inflation inputs. Now, the food is being put in with high diesel and outrageous fertilizer costs. We'll either be paying through the nose for food (waaaaay more than now) or bankrupt the food production industry.

I guess we get what we deserve because we put ourselves in this mess. We have more energy than almost any other country. We can grow more food than almost any other country. We have more technology and technological capabilities than almost any other country. The only reason we are inhibited or suffering is because of decades of bad government policies and greedy corporations (which fund bad government policies).
What gets me is the definition of 'green,' the NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude of certain anti-development 'environmental' groups, and the massive amount of regulatory hoops for energy development. Case in point - a private developer (Phil Anschutz) that owns substantial oil and gas interests sought to develop a wind farm on his own property in the checkerboard in Carbon County that necessarily included undeveloped federal land sections. Some of the same groups who are anti oil and gas development wrote various comments and slowed down the NEPA review process that ultimately took 12 years or so. For most projects, a regulatory review process of 12+ years automatically means the project is not feasible due to financing issues.

We can produce carbon free fuels from fossil fuels (i.e. hydrogen and ammonia) through carbon injection and we can do it economically in our current environment. But what we need is a regulatory system that incentivizes development not one that slows it down to a snails pace and makes it practically impossible.

A good question - What is green energy development? Is it a wind or solar renewables project that will require a surface footprint at least 10-15 times the size of the surface footprint for oil and gas development producing roughly the same amount of energy? Is it a carbon free energy source? And if so, why does carbon injection related to fossil fuel development then not count if it practically eliminates the carbon release? If 'green' means a small surface footprint and non-carbon emitting, then why are the 'environmental' groups not touting nuclear? If 'green' only means solar and wind, then why are some of these 'environmental' groups fighting so hard to keep them off our public lands? It is all so contradictory.

Fact of the matter is that the market will solve the problem but the regulatory system (especially the National Environmental Policy Act process) must be overhauled.
WyoExpat
Cowpoke
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Cheyenne
Been liked: 1 time

OrediggerPoke wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 12:30 pm
ragtimejoe1 wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 9:55 am The environmentalists (perhaps funded in part by Russia) have messed up our energy system. The current green technologies simply can't meet demand and are not sustainable from an input standpoint (lithium, etc.). Trying to immediately transition from stable fossil fuels to non-existent technology might be the dumbest thing in the history of mankind unless you are Russia selling fossil fuels to the countries banning or inhibiting fossil fuel production.

At this point, for national security, it might be time to visit the concept of public investment in private development to stabilize fuel production, fertilizer production, microchip production, etc. That is starting at a snails pace and needs to be ramped up immediately.

We haven't even seen the full inflation fallout from this mess. Wait until you see food prices this fall. Much of the current food market was grown with pre-inflation inputs. Now, the food is being put in with high diesel and outrageous fertilizer costs. We'll either be paying through the nose for food (waaaaay more than now) or bankrupt the food production industry.

I guess we get what we deserve because we put ourselves in this mess. We have more energy than almost any other country. We can grow more food than almost any other country. We have more technology and technological capabilities than almost any other country. The only reason we are inhibited or suffering is because of decades of bad government policies and greedy corporations (which fund bad government policies).
What gets me is the definition of 'green,' the NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude of certain anti-development 'environmental' groups, and the massive amount of regulatory hoops for energy development. Case in point - a private developer (Phil Anschutz) that owns substantial oil and gas interests sought to develop a wind farm on his own property in the checkerboard in Carbon County that necessarily included undeveloped federal land sections. Some of the same groups who are anti oil and gas development wrote various comments and slowed down the NEPA review process that ultimately took 12 years or so. For most projects, a regulatory review process of 12+ years automatically means the project is not feasible due to financing issues.

We can produce carbon free fuels from fossil fuels (i.e. hydrogen and ammonia) through carbon injection and we can do it economically in our current environment. But what we need is a regulatory system that incentivizes development not one that slows it down to a snails pace and makes it practically impossible.

A good question - What is green energy development? Is it a wind or solar renewables project that will require a surface footprint at least 10-15 times the size of the surface footprint for oil and gas development producing roughly the same amount of energy? Is it a carbon free energy source? And if so, why does carbon injection related to fossil fuel development then not count if it practically eliminates the carbon release? If 'green' means a small surface footprint and non-carbon emitting, then why are the 'environmental' groups not touting nuclear? If 'green' only means solar and wind, then why are some of these 'environmental' groups fighting so hard to keep them off our public lands? It is all so contradictory.

Fact of the matter is that the market will solve the problem but the regulatory system (especially the National Environmental Policy Act process) must be overhauled.
Post Reply