MB4, are you for higher taxes. If so, which kind?

2006 Electrical Production Costs (cents/KWh)
Natural Gas 6.75
Wind 4.93
Hydropower 6.04
Photovoltaic 42.72
Coal 2.37
Nuclear 1.72
Petroleum 9.63

Thank me!

trs on April 24, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Not that I doubt you… but if you have a link, I would like to have access to this infomation.

. . . And so he held himself a little higher, and his aides held on tighter than ever, and all proclaimed the Global Warming which did not exist at all.

MB4 on April 24, 2008 at 9:53 PM

Alas, an all-too-believable prospect!

Well done, MB4.

The issue for John McCain is this: Are you going to support this anti-American, unscientific agenda? Are you going to be suckered into causing the decline and fall of America?

MrLynn on April 24, 2008 at 8:02 PM

John McCain. “I can feel nothing warmer at all! That is terrible. Am I stupid? Am I a flat-earther? Am I a denier? Am I not fit to be President? That would be the most dreadful thing that could happen to me. “Oh, it is very hot!” McCain said aloud. “It has my highest approbation.” And McCain nodded in a contented way, and gazed outside, for he would not say that he felt no Global Warming. The whole staff whom he had with him looked and looked, and felt no warming, any more than the rest; but, like John McCain, they said, “It is so warm!” and counseled him to always say that he felt warm when he was out in public. “It is warm, hot even!” went from mouth to mouth. On all sides there seemed to be general warming, and John McCain gave Al Gore the title of Imperial Master of Global Warming Science.

So John McCain went in procession, and every one in the streets said, “How incomparable warm it is! what a warm day it is!” No one would let it be perceived that he could not feel warming, for that would have shown that he was not fit for his office, or was very stupid or a flat-earther or a denier. No day of John McCain’s had ever been as warm as this one.

“But I’m freezing my ass off out here!” a little child cried out at last. “Just hear what that innocent says!” said the father: and one whispered to another what the child had said. “But it is cold out here!” said the whole people at length. That touched John McCain, for it seemed to him that they were right; but the thought within himself was, “I must go through with feeling all the Global Warming, I dare not risk to do otherwise.” And so he held himself a little higher, and his aides held on tighter than ever, and all proclaimed the Global Warming which did not exist at all.

Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes

Last time I checked that list would belong to common sense more than green conservatism.

Says Newt: “Our country must take action to address climate change.”

This is the language, word for word, of the Algorites, the Global Warm-mongers, the Chicken-Little Climate Hoaxers.

So either Newt was being disingenuous, or he has all along accepted the ‘consensus’ arguments of the IPCC.

These leftists want to fool the American people into curtailing US growth, and into sending a huge percentage of the American GNP to ‘developing’ nations to compensate for our CO2 production.

To hell with Newt.

The issue for John McCain is this: Are you going to support this anti-American, unscientific agenda? Are you going to be suckered into causing the decline and fall of America?

Speak up. I’ll help.

Thank me!

Thus, my point to your comments is, no matter what the solution is, it will be, it must be, made into another problem. Your solution of electric power, whether better than oil or not, will be made out to be just as bad and harmful as anything else.

Weight of Glory on April 24, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Yes, that helps. Thank you for clarifying.

I concur with much of what you stated. I believe that many liberals care more about fighting the establishment than conserving the environment. They merely use environmental issues in their attempts to fight the establishment. Therefore, many will never be happy with efficient conservation solutions. Such solutions force them to find (or invent) another environmental problem to justify their fight against the establishment.

Many of these liberals have promoted AGW because it could accomplish their goal nicely. Look at the CO2 numbers. We’re not going to be able to satisfy reduction claims by purchasing new light bulbs, a new refrigerator, and a hybrid car. To comply with reduction requirements, we would need to cut air travel in half, remove half the combustion engines from the road, shut down half the power plants, etc. This would be quite a hit to the establishment.

However, many conservatives also would like to reduce this country’s dependence on foreign oil. I’ve studied (professionally) all the alternatives which purport to hold promise. Certain plans for nuclear are the only solutions which hold any practical promise and would ever be accepted by the left. (Energy is somewhat fungible. It can be made more fungible via a national effort.) You want to build more coal plants? Good luck. Drill in Anwar? Maybe. My point is, we can use the AGW situation to do some good.

Why can’t someone like Newt say, “Look, let’s agree to disagree on AGW. However, we’d still like to position this country with clean power into the future. Let’s dispel the old myths about nuclear power and start exploring this as a serious option. To do so, we need widespread support.” If they refuse, then we can claim that they aren’t serious enough about the AGW issue. In other words, if they argue against nuclear power because, for example, there MIGHT be some waste disposal problems, then you simply show them Al Gore’s movie and ask them to decide which is worse. (This is what I was attempting to do with my battery argument.)

Anyway, I think this would be a good method for hijacking the AGW issue away from the left.

landlines on April 24, 2008 at 5:01 PM

landlines,
I don’t accept that oil is non-renewable either. We may eventually tap out, but not for a long time. “Peak Oil” is an idea that’s been around for a while, but it’s the latest fashion scam to keep us from drilling for more and forcing people into a low power, impoverished life-style. As you say, known reserves continue to increase as they are discovered.

If you ignore the politics in this article, it’s a fascinating look at the Russian theory (abiotic or non-fossil origins of oil). The Russians find oil where it’s supposedly not to be found.

Feedie on April 24, 2008 at 1:20 PM

Absolutely right on batteries. Batteries are only storage for energy which ultimately must come from somewhere else.

The science-challenged Eco Facists have confused “batteries” with an actual “energy source.” Hence their arguments for electric cars, Segways, etc. are silly and scientifically flawed: these things are net energy losers.

The most fungible is oil.

davod on April 24, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Absolutely right: I had intended to include “oil” right before “squirrel” in my list of energy sources. Probably should have included hydrodynamic and thermal, too.

And by the way, I don’t accept that oil is a “nonrenewable” source based on my observation that we keep finding a lot more every year. Comments on this from folks in the oil business?

Hey Republicans, how about a counter offensive?

elraphbo on April 24, 2008 at 10:40 AM

I second the motion. How about a “People First” initiative? (and let the polar bears, trees, rats, and spotted owls form their own government and stop hijacking ours!)

More energy. More transportation. Cheaper food. Better life for our children. More of everything for everyone…except government!

Halley on April 24, 2008 at 12:31 AM

Exactly right. And that is exactly why Newt Gingrich and the idiot “conservatives” who think like him are so wrong.

The most fungible is oil.

Spoken by a loud Martian Tourist.

Weight of Glory, I have no idea what your point is.

blink on April 24, 2008 at 1:27 PM

This thread began as a thread about Newt’s appeal to “us” republicans to be a part of the debate in offering solutions to the causes of Global Warming in general. The folks here began to brush off Newt’s appeal because we are, in fact, taking part in the debate, and we are doing so by calling into question the whole notion of man-made global warming, rather than simply accepting the premise (which, ironically, requires no debate) and moving onto the “solutions” portion of the equation. You have been writing about how battery powered vehicles don’t do as much damage to the environment as the internal combustion engine, an assertion that I cannot judge, having no background in that subject matter whatsoever. Thus, my point to your comments is, no matter what the solution is, it will be, it must be, made into another problem. Your solution of electric power, whether better than oil or not, will be made out to be just as bad and harmful as anything else. So place my previous comment with this one, and I hope that it clears things up.

Weight of Glory on April 24, 2008 at 1:11 PM

Weight of Glory, I have no idea what your point is.

Feedie on April 24, 2008 at 1:20 PM

Hey Freddie, please explain the great efficiency of a piston combustion engine.

Charging a battery: electrical –> chemical. Lossy and wasteful.

Discharging a battery: chemical –> electrical. Lossy and wasteful.

Recycling and disposal –> energy intensive and wasteful.

Dream on. What am I saying? That won’t stop them, will it? See Ethanol scam and food shortages.

Again, so what? Piles of batteries won’t destroy the world.

blink on April 24, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Doesn’t matter, people will claim that they do. Then there will be lawsuits, then there will be environmental impact studies on battery waste damaging the environment and killing _______ (fill in with species of your choice). Then there will be bipartisan congressional hearings on the matter and they will find that, while it is inconclusive, we can’t really take the chance in being wrong. Then we will have 60 Minutes investigative studies on the environmentally damaging effect all these new batteries have on humans and animals alike. Then, once research grants start funneling towards those scientists who arrive at a predetermined conclusion, a “consensus” among scientists will magically appear. Documentaries will come out scarring children about the harmful effects of battery waste, and governments around the world will demand that international action be taken. See, it’s not about whether batteries are harmful, it’s about whether or not people can be made to believe that they are harmful. Just like people have been made to believe that CO2 is harmful. Again the debate is not about the environment, otherwise the dems wouldn’t be demanding that Bush force OPEC to increase supply, as they are doing this very day. But people can go ahead and believe that our government is really seeking a “solution” if they want.

You are ignoring the fact that energy sources are, to a large degree, fungible!!!

This means that the more nuclear power you allow to be used, the more plentiful all energy sources will be!!! More nuclear energy would mean that we could stop the silly use of natural gas in power plants and use the gas to heat homes (where nuclear is impractical): thus reducing the cost of heating homes.

And as for the nuclear waste problem, it was solved before you ever entered the industry (see “Breeder Reactor”). A successful breeder reactor demonstration plant was built in the 60’s, and then the technology was promptly outlawed by an ignorant, Luddite Congress responding to the bleatings of brain-dead, science-impaired, anti-nuclear activists. Until we remove the impediments from Congress, only Europe will be able to recycle nuclear waste instead of storing it.

Want to bring energy prices down? It’s simple: make energy abundant!!! Stop shooting ourselves in the foot and use coal, nuclear, gas, wood, solar, squirrel, or whatever!

But DO NOT let government discriminate against energy sources or pick “winner” energy sources. Political interference only distorts and disrupts the market and makes stupid, inefficient, dysfunctional, and expensive choices: e.g.: Ethanol.

Seven Percent Solution on April 24, 2008 at 12:51 AM

I’m a geologist, and a successful one, and you are an old confused fool.

You don’t start a “debate” with “I surrender”!!!

After you have surrendered the premise, there is nothing left to discuss!!!

Congratulations on a dumb move which has permanently discredited you. You will be remembered much longer for this single act of stupidity than for your genuinely good and innovative ideas.