That is a good thing because when our nominee (Huckabee) goes against their nominee (Hillary), Energy Independence will be a major deciding issue and Huckabee will slaughter the Hildebeast.

We haven’t built new oil refineries in the US in decades. We can’t explore ANWR even though the people of Alaska favor that. We’re not building oil drills off the coast of California and Florida. All of that is tied to environmentalist concerns, not the oil companies, and that’s the reason we are so dependent on foreign sources of oil.

Absolutely right. Nobody gets more vitriol slung at them than the oil companies. Yeah they are big, powerful and rich companies because oil is an EXTREMELY important commodity and without the refining that the oil companies do, our economy wouldn’t have the energy it needs to run. So if we really want to lower oil prices, let’s build more refineries instead of depending on getting oil from ***holes like Hugo Chavez. I also say we should start building new nuclear plants. Incredible research is being done to possibly build “passively” safe plants, which in case of emergencies will automatically shut down based on the laws of physics requiring no human intervention. France is 80% nuclear, I don’t see why we shouldn’t be also.

It creates energy some of the time, but you still need enough infrastructure to pull the load when it is not producing…

So the Capital costs for the infrastructure, which is a LARGE part of cost, remains.

Today, I have 4 inches of global warming on my roof here in Denver… solar power would not be working, so I would still be pulling everything from the infrastructure of the grid, which the power companies would have to pay for…

BUT, I would pull less energy on a good day, lowering the revenue the energy company pulls in…

So, end result? Higher energy costs as the Energy companys would have to support the entire infrastructure for those bad weather days.

Horrible economics.

“Their discussion constituted a repudiation of the old Boss Daley of Chicago, who famously said that politics ain’t beanbag. Apparently politics is beanbag, because that’s all the Democrats threw at each other tonight. I’ve seen more conflict at…

The point about solar only working half the day is a good one, but kinda doubles its efficiency if you think about it in a half full kinda way. Point remains, until solar cell panels or home hydro, or whatever get bought en masse (or until hybrid cars get bought en masse) the production cost/purchase cost will not come down and they won’t be viable.

My favorite home micropower idea so far is a giant tank collecting rainwater runoff that-when filled-opens a valve and then spins a small hydro turbine. Some cool YouTube vids on the turbines out there. Again, only viable in some areas, and not a round the clock gig, but cost effective. Tank is under $1000, connecting to grid and getting generator under $3000. Couple that with the alternative energy resource tax incentives…and I’m considering giving it a try. It won’t power the house year round, but it’d slash my electric big time. What gets my mind racing is that it would all fit discreetly in a tool shed. Now, if the 87 homes in my suburban Americana were to all have such sheds…wouldn’t that do a lot for cutting energy use? I dream of the homeowner’s association paying for it too-well, ok, that’s pure-on fantasy, but guy’s gotta dream. That’s where we get back down to bunny hugs huh?

He might be the biggest asshole in both races, and that’s saying something.

The problem with solar isn’t its inefficiency. It’s the EXPENSE!

Well there’s only one solution to expensive solar cells! Mandatory installation! If everyone must have solar panels on their homes then the cost is bound to come down, right? So we need the government to make homeowners/builders install solar panels on all American homes. Right?

/sarc

Of course there are other options!

If you can’t get it all instantly, it’s bad policy. That’s why Democrats magic wand theories and ideas are such great policy ideas. Realistic and instant!

scottm on January 16, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Scott there is all kinds of “alternatives”, solar panel are just one and used mainly right now to heat peoples water heaters for showers and such. It has dropped many people’s electric/gas bill on just that alone about half.

I am looking into it myself, plus a few wind powered and so on. You have to start from the bottom to get where you want.

The other silly part of Edwards’ answer is his insistence that the oil companies have a stranglehold on US energy policy

Edwards wouldn’t know the first thing about oil even if he needed need the wax for his glossy sheen!

We can’t explore ANWR even though the people of Alaska favor that.

Bryan… Actually people here are looking at the new Natrual Gas Pipeline and have ANWR on the back burner. The NGP is a worry up here concerning TranCanada, the State of Alaska and what is to come and how long. ANWR will take more then 10 yrs to develope and get online with a pipeline ran to it.

And the Obamamessiah…. he kept stalling and saying it was cleaner and that it was for the enviroment. How about being more cost effective? Ugh I hate when they say something and have no clue concerning it.

At last night’s Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama — or is that Sen. Zeus (D-Olympus)? – stated, ”So my job is to tell the truth, to be straight with the American people about how I intend to end climate change…”

If only the dinosaurs could have figured that one out. More seriously, I’d support him if he could do it… after all, that would rid us of Al Gore!

I’d like to see the government get out of the way of the energy business.

Start with not favoring one technology over another, especially esoteric souces that have huge drawbacks.

Wind works great, as long as the wind blows
Solar is expesive and only works half the day

Nuclear has the advantage of producing alot of power in a small footprint, but also is an all or nothing proposition and has a long term waste problem. If only congress would allow reprocessing, recycling, and reuse to go along with a permanent solution for dealing with the end waste product.

Hydro is great, but there are a finite number of rivers that can be dammed, and approval is harder and harder to get.

Fossil Fuel burning has the advantage of the best on-demand power production, but is opposed by the AGW crowd on the basis of CO2 production.

Tidal shows promise, but no one has build a suitable production facility, and transmission might be an issue.

Micropower generation is a good idea, but is hideously cost inefficient.

are there any I missed?

But left out of his answer is that increasing biofuel use is both inefficient (you have to put more energy into creating the biofuel than you get out of it) and puts more pressure on our food supply, which will drive up the price of staple foods.

Not to mention it still gets burned, so it still creates similar pollution that the envirowhackos want to avoid.

He sounded like some ill-informed teenager trying to tell you about the world.

geckomon on January 16, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Nail on head. Home run. 4-bagger. He scores. Touchdown.

Griz on January 16, 2008 at 10:46 AM

This is why I love this site!!!

-0The Cat

He sounded like some ill-informed teenager trying to tell you about the world.

geckomon on January 16, 2008 at 10:40 AM

Nail on head. Home run. 4-bagger. He scores. Touchdown.

I have a feeling the Democrat nominee will flat our refuse to debate the Republican nominee… for obvious reasons.

they’re the same on social security. have you ever tried googling “there is no crisis”?