Dems cracking on oil exploration?
posted at 8:36 am on July 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Hill reports that Harry Reid has stumbled yet again in the standoff over energy policy. Reid attempted a compromise with Senate Republicans by offering expanded leases in the Gulf of Mexico and a billion acres off the Alaskan coast for new studies. That prompted a fierce backlash from Democrats in the Senate and House, including Nancy Pelosi (via Instapundit):
A group of influential Senate and House Democrats has sided with environmental groups against Reid to call exploration in new areas unnecessary.
The legislation, drafted by Reid and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), would open nearly a billion new acres off the coast of Alaska to study for drilling. It would also dramatically accelerate oil leases in the western and central Gulf of Mexico.
“I am unalterably opposed to drilling,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who cited a massive oil spill that closed nearly 100 miles of the Mississippi River last week.
The Republicans in the Senate have made good on their pledge to bring the upper chamber to a halt until a full debate and vote on drilling can take place. Reid cannot split off any Republicans, although he tried with an omnibus spending package consisting of $10 billion in pork. The Republicans refused to bite, however, and Reid needs some way to satisfy enough of them to take control of the chamber again.
Unfortunately, his own caucus won’t allow it. Despite polling that shows 70% of American voters favoring expanded domestic oil production, Democrats appear determined to obstruct it. Lautenberg grasped onto the oil spill in New Orleans as an excuse not to drill, even though the spill has nothing to do with drilling; an oil tanker ran into a barge, and oil tankers would exist with or without new drilling. Pelosi, meanwhile, has closed debate in the House, claiming to be on a mission:
With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives.
“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.”
Actually, she will not have this debate at all. Over a year ago, a few months after taking control of the House, Pelosi bragged about stripping Big Oil of its tax incentives and the redirection of money towards corn ethanol and a variety of energy alternatives as the Democratic strategy specific to lowering gas prices. Instead of going down, prices have risen a full third in the intervening year. Whose policy has failed? Small wonder she has taken the path of the petty tyrant and stifled all debate in the House.
The Democratic policies of failure and shortage have finally been exposed to the American voter. Pelosi may kill debate in the House, but the Democrats are going to lose the debate with the American electorate. If they can’t even go as far as Reid went in reaching a compromise, the Republicans will have a field day in November. The ads write themselves, and perhaps for the first time in this electoral cycle, Republicans have real energy behind them.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
.
Here is the relevant portion of the actual bill:
.
What this says is that the state is trying to discontinue the policy of giving producers credit for paying property taxes against their severance taxes. So, in essence, the state wants to double tax the oil and gas producers. Currently, the companies pay either severance or property tax, but not both – this is a tax break?
Think_b4_speaking on July 29, 2008 at 2:50 PM
I know what it is. I studied it for 4 years in college. And like I said in my post plate tectonics has more evidence for it than evolution which is also a theory.
As far as tax credits the conversation was on oil companies getting subsidies. The poster wanted an example of a subsidy for oil companies. I provided one. Do you not agree that the tax credit is a subsidy?
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Think_b4_speaking on July 29, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Not sure what you want to call it. But it seems like it is trying to elminate previous prefential treatment which would in my book classify the previous law as a subsidy for the oil companies
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 2:56 PM
.
I can’t find any documentation on how logging companies, mining companies,etc. are treated in terms of severance vs property tax, but I bet they are treated similarly to the oil companies are currently. If this initiative passes, only oil and gas companies will be singled out for punitive treatment.
Think_b4_speaking on July 29, 2008 at 3:00 PM
[Think_b4_speaking on July 29, 2008 at 2:50 PM]
Sounds like they are giving the companies another tax deduction on the fed forms. :-)
Dusty on July 29, 2008 at 3:02 PM
What documentation I can find is that mining companies in Colorado pay 2.5% tax, and get the ad valorem exclusion, so it looks punitive to oil and gas companies to me…
Think_b4_speaking on July 29, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Think_b4_speaking on July 29, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I’m not saying it is right or that oil companies need to be taxed. The discussion was on not giving solar/wind etc any subsides. I stated that oil companies have been getting subsidies for awhile. Just was showing an example of what I thought was a subsidy. tax credits in my mind is a subsidy as well as investor tax breaks, low royality payments. I am NOT making any moral judgement of if they are good or not. Just that they are.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Pelosi and the rest of the Dem tree huggers are so dumb that they should be committed.
duff65 on July 29, 2008 at 3:12 PM
I have yet to see anything that oil companies get, that other industrys in America do not also get.
In fact, they pay MORE taxes than other industries.
The Colorado “subsidy” you are talking about, is being brought on by an ANTI oil Govenor here. He has actualy stopped ALREADY APPROVED drilling here.
The “Subsidy” your talking about is that the oil companies pay a “fee” to the State for the permanent removal of a resource, and in the past, that amount could be used to offset other state business tax. Essentialy the State is attempting to RAISE the rate on taxation of the oil industry ABOVE what other industries pay.
So, raising the tax is getting rid of a subsidy? Is that like the Dem line about they won’t raise taxes when they let the Bush tax cuts expire?
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Sorry, but I still don’t see any evidence that the oil companys are getting treated differently than all the other industries in this country… I understand what a subsidy is… and hear the Dems talk about em all the time… but have yet to see one.
The only tax breaks I’ve seen are for plant and business expenses (just like every other business), and being able to offset some taxes for funds already being paid to the government as a fee…
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 4:03 PM
How about the hefty taxes on the retail end for oil?
forest on July 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 4:03 PM
I see your point will try to find some addtional info on the issue.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 6:05 PM
This is such unbelievable horse hockey.
There’s no lack of will; billions of dollars have been invested in alternative energy sources over the past 3 decades at least, much of it by the companies that loons like “unseen” accuse of trying deviously to halt the forward progress of science.
The reason the alternatives are not in use today is very simple: the engineering problems they pose make them more expensive than the technologies they’d be replacing.
Economies of scale have abso-bloody-lutely nothing to do with the problem; everybody knows how scale reduces costs, especially the companies working on energy solutions. The problem is that the alternatives are more expensive even with the reductions.
It’s a simple fact of physics; there’s more potential energy in a barrel of oil than in comparable amounts of nearly anything. That’s why fossil fuels are cheaper to get to than alternatives, and why internal combustion engines are lighter and more compact than alternatives.
Besides, the government had nothing to do with the development of the polio vaccine. It was done entirely by private, commercial enterprises, working with American universities. However, unseen is correct in one way: if the government then had been as intrusive as our current government, a lot more people would have died of polio.
The solution to energy problems is the same as the solution to polio: let the private companies and researchers who know the problems have a free hand to develop — and profit from — whatever makes the most economic sense. That’s the quickest and ultimately most effective way to develop new technologies. The government just gets in the way.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture.” Thanks.)
philwynk on July 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM
From the article:
She’s trying to save the planet?
Earth to Nancy Pelosi: you’re not that bloody important, sweetheart!
Can you believe the arrogance of these fools?
philwynk on July 29, 2008 at 7:16 PM
“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet !!!”
Funny isn’t it,
Liberal/Democrats aren’t one bit embarrassed by this Loon.
franksalterego on July 29, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Exponential Arrogance.
Johan Klaus on July 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Lautenberg is long on crude furtures and Pelosi is long on corn.
burt on July 29, 2008 at 8:13 PM
philwynk on July 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM
cost of methanol around ~$1.00/gal. cost of gasoline per gallon around $4.00/gal. cost of CNG around ~1.25/gal
as far as “alternatives”:
.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner today announced that with DOE funding, a concentrator solar cell produced by Boeing-Spectrolab has recently achieved a world-record conversion efficiency of 40.7 percent, establishing a new milestone in sunlight-to-electricity performance. This breakthrough may lead to systems with an installation cost of only $3 per watt, producing electricity at a cost of 8-10 cents per kilowatt/hour, making solar electricity a more cost-competitive and integral part of our nation’s energy mix.
http://www.doe.gov/news/4503.htm
as far as wind:
For over a century, our world has been powered primarily by carbon fuels. In recent years, concern about global warming and the harmful effects of fuel emissions has created new demand for cleaner and sustainable energy sources, like wind. In many areas around the globe, the energy market is also being driven by a dual new dynamic: deregulation and privatization. As more and more consumers choose who produces their power, the market for renewable resources is forecast to expand at an even greater pace.
Today, more than 39,000 megawatts of wind energy are installed throughout the world, and forecasts for wind power continue to be favorable with more than 83,000 cumulative megawatts predicted worldwide by 2007. With a cost of energy of approximately 3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour and declining, wind is a low-cost renewable energy source that is less expensive than coal, oil, nuclear and most natural gas-fired generation, and is becoming attractive to utilities and electric cooperatives.
http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_wind_energy/en/about_wind_ener.htm
geothermal:
Geothermal energy currently produces over 8,000 MW of electricity worldwide. The United States produces over 2200 MW. California and Nevada account for over 90% of the US capacity for geothermal electricity. Geothermal power currently provides about 8% of California’s total electrical demand. There are various development plans to add more than 500 MW of US geothermal electrical capacity over the next decade. The cost of geothermal electricity in the U.S. ranges from less than $0.03 to $0.08 per kilowatt-hour. The lowest-cost geothermal producers sell power for $0.015 per kilowatt hour. THE GEYSERS in northern California sells power at $0.03 to $0.035 per kilowatt hour. Many geothermal power plants built today are economic at about $0.09 per kilowatt hour.
http://www.deq.mt.gov/energy/geothermal/electric.asp
coal in 2004 (coal has ~tripled in price since then)
in cents/kilowatt
KENTUCKY
4.63
IDAHO
4.97
WYOMING
4.98
WEST VIRGINIA
5.13
INDIANA
5.58
ARKANSAS
5.67
UTAH
5.69
NORTH DAKOTA
5.69
NEBRASKA
5.70
WASHINGTON
5.80
MISSOURI
6.07
ALABAMA
6.08
TENNESSEE
6.14
OREGON
6.21
SOUTH CAROLINA
6.22
MINNESOTA
6.24
KANSAS
6.37
IOWA
6.40
MONTANA
6.40
VIRGINIA
6.43
SOUTH DAKOTA
6.44
OKLAHOMA
6.50
GEORGIA
6.58
ILLINOIS
6.80
WISCONSIN
6.88
OHIO
6.89
MICHIGAN
6.94
COLORADO
6.95
NORTH CAROLINA
6.97
MISSISSIPPI
7.00
NEW MEXICO
7.10
LOUISIANA
7.13
MARYLAND
7.15
ARIZONA
7.45
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
7.47
DELAWARE
7.53
TEXAS
7.95
PENNSYLVANIA
8.00
FLORIDA
8.16
NEVADA
8.56
MAINE
9.69
CONNECTICUT
10.26
NEW JERSEY
10.29
MASSACHUSETTS
10.77
RHODE ISLAND
10.96
ALASKA
10.99
VERMONT
11.02
NEW HAMPSHIRE
11.37
CALIFORNIA
11.45
NEW YORK
12.55
HAWAII
15.70
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 8:59 PM
http://www.coaleducation.org/ky_coal_facts/electricity/average_cost.htm
link for the coal figures above.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 9:00 PM
from the above its clear to see that a one size fits all is not the best way to go. oil/coal/ng have their place but so does wind/solar/geothermal/liquid to coal/CNG/tidal ect
considering that solar has come down from .30/kilowatt to around .10/kilowatt in the last decade and you can see that increased production does lower costs.
but like I have stated the main problem is storage of energy.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 9:05 PM
The Economist hosts a discussion on price.
I’ve brought this link to HotAir readers attention once before.
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 9:05 PM
There is no industry with a more complex taxing and accounting system then the oil companies.
The huge expense needed to build a refinery, drill, or prospect for oil, has given them breaks other industries do not have.
This is from an anti-oil site, but you get the idea.
right2bright on July 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM
unseen,
All the figures you posit don’t change one simple fact: Neither solar nor wind energy are “on” all the time, especially not nationwide, and need backups, which do not start up on a dime. Which means, essentially, that conventional sources (coal, nuclear, oil) must be running at all times, which means that having wind and solar power on the grid make absolutely no difference to the need for those conventional energy sources. Unless and until someone cracks the problem of electrical storage, wind and solar will be pretty much negligible in terms of their impact on energy production in the U.S.
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM
but like I have stated the main problem is storage of energy.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 9:05 PM
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM
That is what I said.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 9:22 PM
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 9:07 PM
also explains the $300 million “prize” McCain is pushing.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 9:23 PM
The $300 million dollar prize McCain is pushing is a waste of time. If someone can solve the problem of large-scale electrical storage, that technology is worth a great deal more than $300 million on the market.
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Isn’t it odd? Nancy appears to be sweating profusely and Harry looks as cold as a cadaver.
diogenes on July 29, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Nancy has a major case of Turkey Neck.
bloggless on July 29, 2008 at 11:16 PM
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 10:27 PM
My understanding was that it was for small scale operations like a car. However regardless at least it shows that McCain at least sees the problem. He is promoting fossil fuels, nuclear, and alternatives. and trying to work on the storage issue.
BHO on the other hand lives on fantasy island and hoping the plane comes in with a new option.
unseen on July 30, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Interesting site… but how can a “study” having to do with historical data, have a range of numbers in it? Especialy when some of the ranges of numbers DOUBLE the “cost”?
The other thing I noticed is that these are all distinctions about what will be considered taxable income, and what is a legitimate business expense.
The whole idea that taxing LESS (ie letting you keep more of your own money) is a subsidy is a rather strange idea. It can give you a business advantage, but considering that most of US oil companies competition is from Government owned foreign companies? Who pay NO TAXES???
To me it looks like the Dems are calling it a subsidy, just so they can raise taxes on an already overtaxed commodity.
Romeo13 on July 30, 2008 at 1:09 AM
That photo…., is that… was that… Mr. and Mrs. Skeletor?
Kini on July 30, 2008 at 1:16 AM
I predict that as oil prices sink below $100, the whole energy issue will be swept under the rug by the Democrats and we’ll just be in the same pickle we were before.
Remember when oil hit $70 several years ago, and then sank to 50? The issue just disappeared for almost 6 months. At 70, I was constantly getting phone calls from the local paper for my take on the situation (I’m the only petroleum geologist in far West Texas). Then the issue vanished.
And then (of course) the price jumped way the hell up, and everyone started freaking out again.
That’s our energy policy in the 21st century: periods of inattentive boredom punctuated by weeks of panicky terror. Simple idiocy, in other words.
And one thing else (belatedly): upinak is 100% correct (as ususal), Carbon and Plate Tectonics are simply theories, not provable scientific fact.
But, like laying a hundred down on Secretariat to beat a one-legged midget in a mile and a quarter match race at Belmont, they’re pretty good bets.
TexasJew on July 30, 2008 at 1:55 AM
What’s funny here is the idea that oil companies are looking for tax breaks like the wind and solar parasites who produce almost no energy but who suck up gigantic tax breaks and benefits. The little energy that they actually produce (for a total energy balance loss) is, by necessity, always heavily subsidized.
Believe me, if you drill nothing but dry holes, no tax break will save you. And if you find lots of oil, you won’t need any tax breaks at all.
To the Dems, we’re all needy parasites waiting for them to simply shower us with stolen money. And then, of course, we’ll vote for them.
TexasJew on July 30, 2008 at 2:07 AM
hey, I can’t help the fact that even a hard science such as geology still has more then enough theories to go around. I may not explain science very well, but I think I explain it well enough for anyone to understand, including children.
BTW I do remember when oil hit 15 dollars a BBL here in Alaska in which they shut down so many damn wells (plugged and abandoned **P&A** for those who do not know the terms) in 1985 – 1993. It was interesting watching EVERYONE leave Alaska at that time and seeing the brand new house sitting there and collecting dust.
Now they want to try a “wind famr” on this island called Fire Island, which I don’t see working to well in -30 this winter.
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 2:26 AM
Now they want to try a “wind famr” on this island called Fire Island, which I don’t see working to well in -30 this winter.
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 2:26 AM
Unbelievable – a freaking idiot wind farm in Alaska, while pissed-off Alaskans are sitting on 20-30 billion barrels of untapped oil (because the Dims won’t let us drill).
TexasJew on July 30, 2008 at 3:22 AM
yeah this is due to a guy by the name of Mayor Mark Begich (aka the new wannabe Senator to replace Stevens)… this guy is an idiot all the way around, but his adds reach across all lines when if you know anything about him, he is a sneaky little shit. I never voted for him…. he isn’t worth the spit on the sidewalk.
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 12:05 PM
unseen posted a flurry of irrelevant data. The point he can’t seem to grasp is that when the prices of energy sources such as coal and oil stabilize at a price that makes them more expensive, in the long run, than the price of alternative resources plus the time-weighted cost of converting to those alternatives, then the switch will occur. And it doesn’t even rely on the prices; it relies on the expected prices given improvements in technology. The fact that the switch has not taken place proves that the alternatives are not economically viable.
He calls the current system “one size fits all.” Ironically, that better describes his solution than the current system. When the government gets involved, it invariably winds up mandating a less-than-optimal solution (ethanol, anyone?) that becomes the one-size-fits-all approach. If they’d just had the sense to leave the damn system alone, the market would generate any number of plausible alternatives, and — here’s the point, pay attention — pick the ones that make the most sense in each application.
Nobody with the slightest knowledge of energy development thinks geothermal will ever amount to more than 2% of power generation; and who knows what tapping all that heat out of the earth’s core will do to the climate, let alone tectonic stability? No wind farm in use today generates more than 20% of its rated capacity; they all require fossil fuel backups just to maintain profitability, and given US geography, will never supply more than about 7% of our electricity. Some solar technologies show some promise, but still require intensive land and material usage, long-distance electrical transmission that wastes power, and storage systems that don’t exist; and who knows what a full-size solar plant will do to the biosphere (ANWR, anyone?)
Short version: only freaking loons who have acquired a little bit of knowledge (a dangerous thing!) are talking about solar and wind as reasonable alternatives. The folks who actually know the technology are talking about nuclear power and fuel cells, about rebuilding the electrical grid, and about building a hydrogen distribution system. That’s where the smart money goes — and unfortunately for unseen and his imaginary solutions, that’s where the investment has been going on.
Why don’t you admit it, unseen? You’re actually talking about solar and wind, ultimately, because you think the oil companies are EEEEEEEvil, and hate the idea of them profiting. Isn’t that right?
philwynk on July 30, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Why don’t you admit it, unseen? You’re actually talking about solar and wind, ultimately, because you think the oil companies are EEEEEEEvil, and hate the idea of them profiting. Isn’t that right?
philwynk on July 30, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Nothing like having words put in my mouth. Oil companies are like any other companies in the USA. companies by themselves are no more evil than any person. I’m sure there are some great players in the field as well as some bad apples in that field.
wind has been said to be able to produce 20% of our electricity. Solar will more than likely remain a fraction of the electricity output.(unless you include biomass in the solar equation)
Geothermal will always be more a small geographic thing.
Oil/coal/NG will be around for decades if not centuries as a part of our economy and our energy usage.
The nuclear/hydrogen angle is very promising and should be explored. Hydrogen has the added benifit of of being able to be produced by individuals.
You are still thinking pre $70.00/bl oil. While it may get back to that level IMO oil firms at $100/bl which would make all other forms of energy price compeitive. The prsent addtional cost and reason for the slow uptake is that the systems do not have the needed infrastructure. There are not many CNG pumps or cars on the road, there are little or no transmission lines for solar and wind plants. Oil has had 100 years to build out its infrastructe. It will take time and oil will always be a part of the energy equation same with coal except it has had even longer to build its infrastructure.
Just like humans moved from wood to coal to oil, they will continue to move to cheaper more available energy products.
Simply because you have no vision does not make others that do wrong.
unseen on July 30, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I find it amusing that hard left dems and hard rigth republicians what to make this an either or issue. The house repubs seem to have the best handle on the issue with the “all of the above” energy policy.
unseen on July 30, 2008 at 2:14 PM
geothermal is more a problem then you realize and can also be a saving grace concerning areas that do not have heavy winter issues. The pressure associated with the fracturing of a area for the water to get down there and to be brought back up is obviously beyond your thinking. Also, if they are in an area of extreme stress (aka your techtonic plate theory) it CAN blow if there is an earthquke. Also the fact that the casings they use are beginning to deteriorate due to the sulfer and acid content. It doesn’t matter if the casings are made of metal or concrete.. they are failing and casings are NOT easy to repair or replace once put in place.
California has a geothermal area that the Navy provided over near China Lake base, which is starting to fail after 50 years, that isn’t in their 2004 report.. The Area is becoming colder, due to the water they are plugging into the fissure.
Here is the 2004 report:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/gao_04_513_navy_geothermal_program.pdf
But you may want to look into other such as:
Multi Area of the United States for Geothermal: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/ThermalActivity/description_thermal_activity.html
And the Coso Geothermal Corrosion Studies from the DOE, Naval Weapons Center which is now at the base at… wait for it… China Beach:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5075681
unseen, this is something you seriously have no clue about and I am very actively involved in. Stop before you make a fool of yourself.
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Humans (if you want to believe in the evolution theory as well) started with wood, then rendered fat from animals for “oil” (aka dead animals), then a coal like substance called lignite which is usually the type of “coal” that is exposed more often on the surface, then on to MORE animal products (whale oil and baleen comes to mine) then onto our crude and coal.
FYI Coal has been around for thousands of years. It was the main source of how to make those beautiful swords that everyone gawks at at museums. As well as making… horse shoes!
Don’t assume.
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Don’t assume.
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 2:30 PM
should take your own advice.
unseen on July 30, 2008 at 3:01 PM
You are promoting a false hope. I, highscot, Texasjew and a few others actually work in the industry and are trying everything to get the energy people demand. As you sit there and spout off falisy of products and a energy souce that can not be harnessed in mass amounts.
You are just ticked off… get over it.
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 3:05 PM
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Throughout history there have always been the people that say it can’t be done. there were people in the 1950’s that said the interstate program was pie in the sky. People that said the airlift to berlin was useless. People that said we should not fight the USSR instead just except the status quo. People that have said flight was impossible, that the humans on the moon was fantasy. That cell phones were magic. That sails on ships where the only way to travel. that scoffed at the steam engine and declared that horses would always be the mode of transportation. The list goes on. the fact that you can not see does not mean it will not work. You assume that nothing new will happen that no new discoveries will occur. you assume that this is the 70’s again. Unlike the hard left that sees oil as evil or the hard right that sees oil as the ONLY soucre of energy I see a middle way. I can see Americians having two or three cars each running on different fuels and the decsion on what to drive depending on the cost of that fuel for the day. or the distance one must travel. Most American already have two cars why do they need to be gas cars. A switch over to a more diverse energy generation will increase wealth in this country onehundred fold just like the switch to oil increased wealth in this country over the last century.
People like you are the people that have no vision, that can not imagine a different world. they can not think outside the box. For every “point” you bring up there are other points that show you are wrong.
Will the change over be easy? Will it be cheap? No and No. Can we continue down the path of shipping 700 Billion over seas? can we have our entire economy based on one input? No and no again.
the problem with America today is that there is no vision. No manifest destiny.
Solar energy, Wind energy, geothermal, tidal, CNg, coal to liquid, biomass, ethonel have all been shown to work to some degree. Some at cheaper costs than the present “energy source” Will any of them work for all occasions? No. Oil is PART of the answer not the total answer.
As far as the “theory of Plate tectonics” if you got a better explaination of geology I’m all ears. Plate tectonics is the only unifying theory of why and how the earth does what it does. Of course we could just chalk it
up to some magical occurance or something.
unseen on July 30, 2008 at 4:24 PM
LMFAO @ you!
Read texasjew’s comment. Whom is a Petroleum Geologist. I don’t have to go any further then that… as I have taken the courses as well.
As for forsight into the future… you have to :spend some money before you make some money”, which if from being a business owner at one time in my life and it rings true. As I am not one who believes in all alternative energy, there are some things that help. Solar panels for water heaters is a great thing. Now how do you make it for a house about 2100 sq ft that is in the dark half the year?
You are thinking on “your terms and your state” I on the other hand know from experience that everything you have said concerning “renewable or reusable” can’t always be done.
Case closed and you vision is needed to expand a little. The world doesn’t rotate around you, you need to rotate around your world a little bit.
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 5:00 PM
That would have been an interesting point about 5 years ago but it’s time to wake up. Intel has said that within 4 years, their solar panel technology will take solar energy to parity with coal- and that’s not assuming a carbon tax or the inevitable increases in coal commodity costs as the developing world demands more energy.
Intel isn’t your local group of tree huggers. Intel is hard core science and technology and consistently breaks old technical barries. There are other promising solar technologies that promise parity today, although no large scale tests have proven their potential yet. In any case, the world of clean energy as the province of eco dreamers is over. The big players- the Intels and Samsungs and GEs of the world- are moving in and with massive resources. One of the largest backers of wind turbines in the country is Berkshire Hathaway, which has a track record of picking winners.
Oil drilling should continue at full pace, but just as importantly we need to start moving behind fossil fuels and our massive dependency on foreign oil. Natural gas may well be one of the solutions.
If you know people in the trucking industry, then you know that a natural gas powered truck isn’t considered a crazy idea anymore. A technology that lowers the price of fuel by $2 per gallon at today’s prices is starting to look like a very promising alternative. If oil ever reaches $200 per barrel, large companies will start moving to natural gas trucks en masse without any government regulation to encourage the change. Oil consumption in China, India, and other developing counries will continue to surge once the global enconomy picks up, and the impact on oil prices won’t be friendly to Americans.
bayam on July 30, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Now how do you make it for a house about 2100 sq ft that is in the dark half the year?
You don’t seem to know much about solar tech. This problem has been solved by solar thermal technology. It doesn’t affect wind to the same degree.
However, there are valid points here. Our power infrastructure must be updated in order to handle more variant power outputs.
It’s also true that energy companies feel sticker shock at the price of solar or wind tech. Free sunlight is a misleading term as that’s realized only after a solar plant has been constructued. A coal plant costs far less upfront to build, offset by higher ongoing maintenance plus the obvious cost of coal as plant fuel. In the world of business, higher ongoing costs are easier to handle.
Clean tech requires a much larger investment upfront, which makes financing more difficult. However, evergy companies aren’t responsible for evaluating national security policy and US energy strategy. (James Woolsey is very articulate in explaining how energy is a major security issue.) Only the US government can bring national security into the picture for local energy companies, by making it easier for energy co’s to finance the massive upfront costs of clean energy. But it’s certainly worth the expense and will only become cheaper as energy commodity costs rise over time.
bayam on July 30, 2008 at 6:02 PM
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Well it appears the inability to read can be added to your list. I have stated time and time again that solar/wind is part of the solution. would you use solar in alsaka in a house with a night of 6 months out of the year? Only if you are a moron or an idiot.
The midwest is ther Saudi Arabis of wind. No where else in the world does the wind blow like in the midwest. Not to try to use that is beyond stupid. Just like the early settlers used wind to help pump their water instead of using a mule.
the southwest is the land of sun it’s a dessert you would have to be stupid not to try to use that energy in AZ,NM,NV, CA and other states.
The east and west coasts have the oceans right next door. Failure to try to capture the energy from those forces is stupid also. Failure to try to capture the energy of geothermal in ICEland and instead import Natural gas for their energy needs would be stupid, Yellowstone national park is atop the one of the world’s biggest caldrea. Old faithful etc this area can be used for geothermal.
ethonal can be made from other forms of biomass besides corn. and should be used.
I am thinking of a “regional solutions” to tackle the national energy policy.(i.e federalsim) The one size fits all energy approach is yours. the energy policy that works in Hawaii would maybe not work in Iowa. Closed minds look for national solutions.
I’m still waiting for the
“plate tectonic” rebuttal. as texasjew says he would want to bet against it. Care to try?
unseen on July 30, 2008 at 6:11 PM
bayam on July 30, 2008 at 5:53 PM
I’m afraid you are wasting your breath. It’s like talking to your grandfather about something. very closed minded, most of the posters on this thread have been, and stuck in the past.
they have not kept up and refuse to see the promise that is a new dawning of energy. any biologist will tell you the rate of growth in an animal population depends on energy. The more energy and the cheaper its is to get (I.e less threat to life, less energy expanded in the animal world) the more and cheaper the energy the higher thew growth rate and the bigger the population. the bison thrived on cheap plentiful energy.
unseen on July 30, 2008 at 6:16 PM
I’m still waiting for the
“plate tectonic” rebuttal. as texasjew says he would NOT want to bet against it. Care to try?
correction on that one
unseen on July 30, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Hmmm, Speaker Botox’s website will not take comments from the public. I just tried to send her this from her web page contact form but it kicked back:
Dingbat63 on July 30, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Unseen: As I said EARLIER in a POST… YOU DO NOT READ POSTS! Here is your damn answer, I never said I didn’t believe in Techtonic’s Theory… but you CAN NOT PROVE IT! Ugh now grow up ffs!
You ignorant screw ball.. READ PEOPLE WHOLE DAMN POSTS!
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Yeah ok.. so tell me how in the middle of Winter in Anchorage, Alaska when there is only 4 hours of sunlight how I can power my whole freaking house?
As I said to unseen…. the world does not rotate around you.
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 8:06 PM
upinak on July 30, 2008 at 8:05 PM
I did read the entire post. and I will repeat MY question.
Do you think Plate tectonics is true or not? simple enough.
You say it is a theory which it is. however a thoery does not mean it is not a provable scientific fact. In fact for something to become a theory it has to be provable by scientific fact.
you are confusing a thoery with a hypothesis (i.e a guess)
a scientific THEORY is believed fact until it is proven wrong.
unseen on July 30, 2008 at 8:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3