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 Next »
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 10:57 AM
there are already many forms of storage that work on a small scale from capacitors, flywheels, storage of gas under pressure etc. These have been problematic when tried on large scales. Solar is more along with this than wind. However since the energy can be sotred on small scale there is not reason why it can not ultimatly be stored on large scales. some of it is money of course and the fact that for years the costs where not worth it but part also has to do with not having the backbones of the infrastructure. Windmills for example as with any mass produced product get cheaper the more you make as the needed labor becomes skilled, the needed tools can be copied, the neeeded materials are purchased in bulk etc. The need production plants are built.
100 years we would have had the same conversation about Air conditioning. I’m sure it was cheaper to have horse drawn wagons bring the ice from the mountians in special carts. Then build the entire industry needed to mass produce Fridgeration industry.
And I’m sure it was easier and cheaper to cut down trees than to build, plan and grown the heating industry. etc.
Just because it is “how we do it today” does not mean it is the best way. If humans thought like that we would not have any of the modern things we have and we would still be living in caves and cooking over a fire.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Yea, right burn money fasterThat’s the secret. We’re digging a hole, we don’t want to be in, so the solution is dig faster
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 10:59 AM
You need to take economics and learn about economies of scale. The more you produce a product the lower the cost to produce that product is. There is a tipping point. Where costs come down. From ipods, to kitchen appliances this is seen over and over again. A $2000 computer today would have cost hundreds of thousands 40 years ago.
Of course the alternative energy is going to be expensive. parts are not uniform yet, they are not massed produced, the labor skills are not there giving labor the ability to continue to charge higher and higher rates. The special parts are able to command top dollar, etc.
the more we build the cheaper it becomes.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 11:18 AM
You are banking on a Theory sweetheart. Cabon theory is one thing that scientists have been trying to figure out for years as well as argueing to death.
You don’t have to explain to me how “oil” is made. But you forget other issues. As some areas of the world have bogs, swamps, wooded plains, etc. It creates different types of carbon based items. Methane is usually from boggy areas that have extreme wet on top yet the areas under the bog are usually a clay based. Swamps are wet on top as well but show that they have multiple layers of decay and have been known to produce Methane, some shale oils and a few other heavy and in some case wet gases depending on the environmental pressures.
What I think is interesting is that the North Slope of Alaska, such as Prudhoe and Kuparuk, have bits and pieces of wood fiber showing. Ahhh how can that BE!?!??! The North Slope is flat as a pancake (besides a pingo here and there) and the fact there are no trees to be found. The sands in that area are not permeable to let wood move around there! Yet, it is one of the best areas for sweet crude (depending on depth) and it is shown with some carbon checking that it is in fact a type of tree. Petrified trees are all over that area as well as dinosaur fossils. And what about the parfin wax from great depths that like to clog pipelines or the little bacteria we so so well that helps “make” the oil?
As for Plate Techtonics, as I love talking about this as well, but it is also a theory! You can’t prove it even though the fault lines are THERE! They (as in the Scientists) can not make it a law because you can not reproduce this on a scale such as the earth.
Also, the sun may do this and that, but other items come into play. Meteorites, Super Novas, etc have been theorized to bring other materials to this world.
The Sun is the start but when it comes to it, it is much more then just that to bring us that thing called Oil. As you have said in your paragraphs.
upinak on July 29, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Without getting into the specific physics of it, because that would make this post WAY too long, the storage problem is not simply one of efficiencies of scale. There are good and solid reasons why large-scale electrical storage will not work, at least not with the current available technologies. For large-scale electrical storage to become feasible, some entirely new method will have to be developed. This is more akin to a pure engineering problem, but it is going to require more than the usual amount of creative innovation to make it work.
Again, I am not saying it can’t be done. I believe it can, and I sincerely HOPE it can. However, just as with the vague term “alternative energies”, my assertion is that it would be foolish to look at this as something which can just be solved by enough suckling on the public teat.
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 11:21 AM
You’ll never be able to convince most people that you can’t possibly get more energy out of a solar panel than the sun puts into it. Especially if those people don’t understand the solar constant and the law of conservation of energy. I’ve just about given up. Most people just don’t understand the magnitude of the energy use of this country or just how much energy it takes to turn a generator. I won’t even try to explain how we must produce 3200 meagwatts of thermal energy to output 1000 megawatts of electrical energy. They just don’t get it.
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 11:21 AM
“Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee”.(HEMMINGWAY)
pueblo1032 on July 29, 2008 at 11:23 AM
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Polio would never have been wiped uot without the resources needed to transport, force people to get the vacinne, funds to buy it in poor countries etc.
there are many brillant ideas out there and many exits there is not the will to put them in action. We have the answers we lack the will. If our goverenment of today was the same as those in the 50’s everyone would have polio by now.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Can you imagine these two and Obama in charge of a civilian defense force?
sabbott on July 29, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Hugs Old! Sweetie you are thinking that people understand math, algebra, calc etc. If they can’t understand that, they do not usually understand pressure scaled, watts, outputs etc.
Here is another Hug!
upinak on July 29, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Well said! It seems to be a problem of understanding that is world-wide.
OldEnglish on July 29, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Nice try, but irrational ramblings do not make a post.
First, Salk had worked for several government institutions, providing him with the background to develop his ideas. His “flash” took decades of research and work. Einstein, the same, these guys did not work in a shell, they were heavily financed.
The Manhatten project was to develop something that was theory, to an event. One specific event, the bomb, which had been done in labs under very controlled conditions.
The NASA program (better read a little about how it was put together) tackled many different problems
Here look at your two arguments side by side.
See where you are defending my statement, proceed like Salk, even if you don’t have a cure, or proceed like NASA (who didn’t even know whether to use solid or liquid propellant).
The point is this, if we sit and wait, then nothing gets done.
I say drill and develop nuclear energy, and also look for alternatives, keep searching and investigating…
You say only work with what we know and don’t seek others because we don’t know what they are…
A difference in philosophy…
right2bright on July 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM
upinak on July 29, 2008 at 11:19 AM
good points but still doesn’t change the basic message that oil, coal, natural gas is a form of solar energy storage…
as far as plate tectonics being a theory. A theory that fits all the evidence. The measurements from magnatic readings, movements of continents, tectonic rifts in gettysburg, the red sea etc. the formation of the mid atlantic rifts, rim of fire, earthquake locations, etc It has more evidence than evolution and is considered by most geologists to be a fact.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 11:34 AM
LOL….
Wonder TWIN Powers…. ACTIVATE…
Pelosi “Form of an OSTRICH!” and sticks here head in the ground…
Reid “Form of a ROADBLOCK”… cause we wouldn’t actualy want Congress to do their dam job…
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I never said “don’t seek [other energy sources]. Not once. What I said is that the analogy of a Manhattan Project is inapt because we don’t know yet what engineering goal we are trying to achieve. And I rigidly oppose the expenditure of public funds on such a boondoggle, because I see absolutely no point in it.
But nowhere did I say that we shouldn’t seek other sources, and by asserting otherwise, all you do is prove that you STILL have no clue what I was and am talking about.
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 11:36 AM
LMAO!!!!
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 11:37 AM
ROFLMAO
“Hey, I’m only losing a nickel a case, but look at my sales volume! People are lined up around the block to buy!”
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Most people don’t understand the magnitude of the energy the sun hits the earth with everyday. Day in and day out. Or the magnitude of the gravational energy the moon exerts on the earth in the forms of tides, or the amount of energy it takes to move major airmasses across mountians. or the amount of energy reguired to move entire continents. etc. compared to these forms of energy “our energy use” is very small. By tapping into these energy forms we can increase our energy almost infinitely as far as in human terms.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM
It doesn’t matter how cheap it becomes, useless is useless.
OldEnglish on July 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM
It is really impossible to believe that the constant bombardment that the democrats have done to Bush about his lack of intelligence for the last 7+ years has been wasted. The Congress of the Living Dead starring Nancy Peloser and Harry (the talking cadaver) Reid has removed all doubt that insanity is worse than being stupid. Add the empty shell of a candidate (Obambi)you have disaster looking for a place to happen.
volsense on July 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM
A couple years ago, the Democratic Underground gang were trying to learn how to debate logically. It worked in their favor, until they ran into some people who had a clue about the topic, which is to say about energy.
Energy storage is of course, one of the many problems facing alternative energy. The biggest problem is that it’s just not ready for prime time. Wind is not bad, when the wind blows. Solar is nice, on a sunny day. Neither is useful when the conditions don’t favor it.
The reason that dirty old fossil fuels are used in transportation is they are reliable, and cheaper than the alternatives. I covered that in the link above.
Solar and wind, geo thermal, wave energy. Lot’s of ideas to produce electricity, but here’s the thing. The people who make those systems suggest you have a generator as back up for when the conditions don’t make energy production possible. Cloudy rainy days, no solar. Still air? No wind. Just fire up the old five kilowatt generator no problem.
We would still need lots of power plants, even if we were dumb enough to follow Al Gores desperately seeking a legacy as a success plan. Nuclear could and does solve a great many of these problems, reliable, cheap, and most importantly efficient. So of course, the Liberals lie to us and tell us they care about energy, but no way to Nuclear.
Lies are easy to disprove, and in this one, the Liberals including Future President Obama, are winning this debate. Why? Because the Republicans never bothered to do a Ronald Reagan, and educate the people. Now, as the congressional sessions end, they’re screaming for campaign donations. Why? Oh that’s right, you want to help me out at the tank. Where were you before? Oh you were fighting the war on Terror, that’s right.
Guys, he’s the problem. You had six years where the Republicans were in charge of both houses of Congress. They had clear majorities. Clear majorities. They should have run with every bit of the Conservative Message, educating the population as they went. Smiling happily and when a Liberal says “Ten years to bring oil drilling on line.” Tell them that all the studies clearly show that it would take at least twenty five years to get wind and solar deployed. Further, it would take only one year if you left wing nuts didn’t sue over every little oil well.
No, not the Republicans, not John McCain. They won’t challenge the lies of the left, instead embracing those lies for so long that now it’s considered true in the publics mind. Why are we here? The Republicans punked out. How do we get out of here? We can’t, we’re screwed, totally and completely. It would take courage on the parts of the Republicans, and courage is something that’s in short supply in elected Republicans.
Snake307 on July 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 11:39 AM
again you have no clue. try looking at the cost to produce a killowatt with solar in 1970 and that cost today. Or the cost of producing a a gigabit of storage in 1980 to say the cost of a gigabit today. You are the reason movie companies charge more for a DVD than a vcr tape even thought the DVD cost less to make. People do not understand economies of scale and thus companies can take advantage of the less informed like yourself.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 11:46 AM
OldEnglish on July 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM
yeap always better to wage worldwide wars for energy in the future. now that isn’t useless.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM
You betcha they’re problematic!!! I don’t know anyone who would want to be anywhere near a flywheel storing 50 megawatts !!
One way you could store energy from a 1000 acre wind farm is to build a really huge reservoir. Pump water into the reservoir when the wind blows, and let the water fall through turbines to provide power when you need it. But the enviro-wackos would never let you build the reservoir, and they are also against hydroelectric power. And the other problem is that many of the ideal places for wind farms are bone-dry.
So wind continues to be a money pit: wind farms can only be built when you ignore most of the costs (or pawn them off on other utilities) and feed them lots and lots of tax money. They’re better than ethanol energy-wise, but they’re a much worse investment than ethanol.
landlines on July 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM
You need to read a book.
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Here in Texas the utilities consumer is paying like $4 hike in each bill to fund wind power infrastructure.
carbon_footprint on July 29, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Snake307 on July 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM
good post. I agree nuclear would solve alot of the issues. I also agree that the repubs are spinless but the dems are moreso.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Economics. OK, here’s a question to our Economic argument. Why is it that nearly fifty cents of every dollar being spent for taxes isn’t enough? Not just income tax, but phone tax, gasoline tax, sales tax, property tax, car tag taxes, social security taxes, taxes on every single thing you do. Think about it for a moment.
If you work, you’re taxed. If you save money, you’re taxed. If you spend money, you’re taxed. If you stay home, you’re taxed. Really now, fifty cents of every dollar I make is in taxes, and the argument is from Washington that they can’t manage to make it without raising my taxes? Have you heard of blood from a turnip? I tried to give blood last week, they stuck the needle in, and a puff of red powder came out. I apologized, and told them I’d just paid my car and house taxes. They told me I was bled out and I should come back later.
Economics of scale, fine. Tell me why we can’t increase the production of Nuclear Power Plants? Those are even at the limited scale they are on, are already the most efficient and reliable electrical production facilities in existence. Cheaper per kilowatt hour than solar, wind, oil, coal, and even clean natural gas. Nuclear works at night, when solar doesn’t. Nuclear works on days when the wind doesn’t blow hard enough to turn the windmills. Nuclear works, period. Yet we oppose it? Why?
Why do Liberals insist on an accurate and believable plan to cover the ten thousand years that the fissionable material will exist, yet refuse to provide any kind of accurate prediction on Global Warming that can be tested and considered?
Snake307 on July 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM
well now we know your issues. If you think one book gives you an education, just think what two books or maybe 10 books could do for your.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I agree with everything you say! Just out of curiosity what is the solar constant in kw/sqmtr at the Earth’s surface? Oh and assuming 100% efficiency what would the area of a solar panel producing 1 megawatt/hour be? How would you make up for the power lost when the sun sets, that is how much back up power in percent of production capacity would you build to offset this loss?
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM
A quick comparison between nuclear and solar power generation.
Ginna Nuclear Generation Plant in NY:
Built 1970; upgraded in ‘96 and license extended to 2029.
Avg yrly generation (last 5 yrs): 4,244 GWh
Land Occupied: 50 Acres +/- (as estimated using Google Earth)
Nevada Solar One:
Built: 2006
Estimated avg yrly generation: 134GWh
Land Occupied: 400 acres; 300 acres of solar panel
There are other economic factors to consider, sure, but I can’t see paving the planet with solar being justifiable for mass energy generation now, and never unless it becomes super-duperity-duperously efficient. Just to bring Nevada Solar One up to Ginna’s generating capacity, you need another 9,000 plus acres of solar panels or the land footprint of another 180 Ginna Nuke plants.
Dusty on July 29, 2008 at 11:54 AM
What are you some kind of Geo Specialist? Oh, that’s right you are! What you said! Too bad the idiots are running the ship.
VikingGoneWild on July 29, 2008 at 11:54 AM
You also have a problem with losses. You never get as much energy out of a storage system as you put in.
Which is why hydrocarbons, and coal will continue to be the most cost effective, most efficient, source of energy, and why the the internal combustion engine will continue to be the most common means of transportation. Cost, efficiency, convenience.
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Whoops, sorry for no links. Both sites can be found in Wikipedia and Google Earth under their plant names.
Dusty on July 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM
WTF??
Now you want to know the title of every book I have, and every book I have ever read? Seriously?
What are you smokin’?
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 11:57 AM
We don’t need to wage war for energy, we’ve got all the fossil fuel resources we need, for hundreds of years. What we do need to do is wage war against the damn greenies!
OldEnglish on July 29, 2008 at 11:57 AM
landlines on July 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM
yes those are some of the problems but if we do not continue to study it the problems will never be overcome. Personally I think the answer is to go smaller. Get it to the individual level. Allow individuals to store the energy on site.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 11:59 AM
fixed it .
Mojack420 on July 29, 2008 at 12:00 PM
We don’t need to wage war for energy, we’ve got all the fossil fuel resources we need, for hundreds of years. What we do need to do is wage war against the damn greenies!
OldEnglish on July 29, 2008 at 11:57 AM
and no one will want those resources from us in the future? China, Russia will not invade us to get that energy if needed? we are 300 million in a world of 6 billion. If we are the ony ones to have energy then the rest of world will turn against us.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 12:01 PM
“surrender force?”
We need these just about as much as we need “community organizers”, whatever that is.
NoDonkey on July 29, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I’m Uninformed??I’M ROFLMAO!
People pay a higher price for DVDs than they do for tapes because DVDs are convenient.
Why do people pay over a dollar (US) for a bottle of water at a convenience store when water at home is free?
Keep posting unseen. This just keeps getting better with every comment.
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 12:03 PM
America,
Keep doin what your doin and you’ll keep getting what your getting!
Keep voting Dems into power and keep getting Higher energy costs, more taxes, more user fees, LESS DISPOSABLE INCOME!
dhunter on July 29, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Wakeup for Chrissake they are telling you that is what they want!
It would be OK if the idiots that vote Dems in only had to pay, but unfortunately we all do!
dhunter on July 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Notice that the liberals against drilling are all quite wealthy?
Gas prices mean nothing to them.
drjohn on July 29, 2008 at 12:06 PM
One thing you left out is that Ginna is one of the smaller nuclear units and building a larger one doesn’t necessarily mean a larger foot print. That 50 acres is not all necessary for the plant to operate. Probably just land♦ the company bought. Salem in New Jersey has a site that’s something like 700 acres. The plant only takes up a fraction of that.
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I agree that there is a possibility that an invasion for energy might be planned, but that would happen whether we use it or not. Far better to use it while searching for energy Nirvana and, if attacked, make damn sure that they are unsuccessful. Obama, let loose would make that impossible.
BTW, I do see wars flaring up, at some point, over all resources, not just energy.
OldEnglish on July 29, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Sorry, I’m a technology guy… and I can’t let this one pass.
40 years ago would have been 1978, the year before I graduated High School. The PC did not exist as such, and NO amount of GOVERNMENT funding would have made it come about faster. NO GOVERNMENT control, or picking winners and lossers would have been effective… who in the WORLD would have bet on Bill Gates over IBM? It had nothing to do with an economy of scale, but with technological development… which you CAN NOT DICTATE!
Problem here is that the GOVERNMENT is picking winners here through TAX POLICY… and by funding some projects, while not others.
Thats the real problem here… get government out of it, make a level playing field by getting rid of ALL subsidies, and then let the market decided.
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Stick to your guns Harry and Nancy, good Democrats don’t back down, they march right over the cliff and never flinch. Just hold your positions until November…. don’t worry, the voters will take care of it.
Maxx on July 29, 2008 at 12:16 PM
You mean 30 years ago would have been 1978?
carbon_footprint on July 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Sorry, I’m a stickler for detail, and I can’t let THIS one pass…
40 years ago would have been 1968, the year before I was conceived. ;-)
Apart from that one small detail, I agree with every word.
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Beat me to it…
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Doc how can you say that this is pork? Clearly America’s highest priorities include training for realtime writers (whatever that is), captive primate safety, and giving the Smithsonian a new greenhouse. Let it not be said that the most powerful nation on the planet goes to bed at night with our captive primates still at risk.
More seriously, some of the bills were semi-legitimate but botique bills that are either named after somebody or target a limited audience should never be seen as national priorities. If Congress wants to tackle tracking Lou Gerhig’s disease patients, paralysis, post-partum depression, etc. Let them do it as an omnibus spending package administered through the DOH.
In defeat, all these special interest pork projects are simply fodder to allow Democrats make the claim that their GOP rivals voted against funding the research that would have cured Christopher Reeve. If they would have passed, the piecemeal approach of these projects would have resulted in no tangible result beyond politicans making the claim that they really care about the acidification of the seas.
highhopes on July 29, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Doh…. neeed…. more…. coffee……
Ouch… math impaired this morning… Sorry…
And being 68 it makes it even worse.
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I gotta think that nuclear power plants have a huge setback requirement for security and safety. Even a small footprint for the facilities comes with a sizeable land requirement.
highhopes on July 29, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Careful, or you will be accused of making unfair comments about 68-year-olds. ;-)
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Yeah, you’re right, you never posted the words “don’t seek”, just a waste of funds…and you are right, I have no clue what you are talking about.
If you want to seek new energy projects (new meaning new) then we are in agreement…if you don’t, then we have a different philosophy.
You want to stick with what “works”, I want to try and find something new and innovative…different philosophy’s.
I have a feeling you agree with me, it is just stuck in your keyboard.
right2bright on July 29, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Do you really want to get into a math discussion? Do you want to name the day your talking about and the location so that the distance to the earth can be factored in and the amount of solar energy hitting the earth. Since solar panels are closer to 20% effenciency does the answer even matter? Might as well throw in the amount of solar sun spots etc. I can also come up with a hundred reasons why not to do something. People in 1950 and 1960 came up with hundreds of reason why we could get to the moon. the same people are still coming up with reason why we shouldn’t explore space today.
Last year people came up with many sound reasons why the surge would not work, would be a waste of energy and resources and lives. There are always nay sayers.
So you think a nuclear power plant with solar and wind power tied to it, with natural gas for transportion fuel, and fuel cells being run by hydrogen produced at the nuke plant is pie in the sky. Or a system of small energy inputs INTO the grid is not worth it. Where clean coal technology is suplamented by geothermal, tidal, solar or wind energy from indivuals on the grid or massive plants. Where people can produce there own energy relativlety cheaply with hydrogen from water. Etc.
There are as many ideas that can work as there are naysayers. The naysayers have got us into $4.00/gal gas from no drilling, no refiners, no coal mining, no solar, no wind, etc. The energy debate for the last 30 years can be summed up in one word NO on both sides. It is time we move past the NO. And get to a place where we were in 1950 and 1960’s. Where this country can do anything it sets its mind too.
Will solar/wind/geothermal/ etc take the place of fossil fuels of course not. will we have enough fossil fuels in the next 50-100 years to bring 6 billion people into the modern world of course not. Will we have wars over that fossil fuels if that is are only otion. of cousre we will. Will solar/wind/ geothermal be a PART of the solution. yes
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Good advice…we should all email her and tell her to stand tall, don’t let those oil companies push her around…
right2bright on July 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM
[Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 12:08 PM]
Totally agree, Oldnuke. I was going to put a item in descibing the land use but it was turning out to be very long for Nevada Solar One. I should have just linked a couple of pics.
Here’s a pic of Ginna.
Here’s a pic of Solar One.
Looking at the pic of Ginna, I’d say my estimate of its land footprint is twice the actual used space — GoogleEarth in that area doesn’t have good closeup resolution.
Dusty on July 29, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Actualy, not if properly designed. You can’t run up to a reactor and steal the fuel… its litteraly built in in most designs.
As to hitting it from outside? and causing contamination? Once again a proper design with the containment vessel underground would mitigate this threat…
A reactor is actualy a very tough nut to crack, ask the Navy.
And speaking of which, why can’t we declass some of the older Navy designs for smaller reactors, and get them being built QUICKLY? They’re small, secure, tested, robust, and prooven Teck… heck, we even HAVE the expertise to build them already in the Shipyards.
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Why do people pay over a dollar (US) for a bottle of water at a convenience store when water at home is free?
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Because they are stupid.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 12:31 PM
The actual plants are situated on what is called a protected area the entire site is called the owner controlled area. The protected area is usually very small in relation to the owner controlled area. Nuclear plants have to be competitive with fossil plants to be viable. In my experience our fossil plants had to work hard to be competitive with us. The only electricity that was produced cheaper than nuclear production was hydro. If you’re interested there’s a lot of information here.
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 12:32 PM
They’re actually too small to be economically viable. The cost per megawatt would be too high. The break point is about 600 megawatts electrical, or it was about 15 years ago. May be different now. In any case there are really good designs out there for commercial plants. We just haven’t built any here in a while.
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I don’t think anyone here is argueing AGAINST alternative energy sources…
I know personaly I’d love to see them. What I object to is Politicians gambling my money on unprooven technology.
IF wind and solar are workable, someone will do it WITHOUT government subsidies. However, if the technology is not yet ready for primetime, then we should not be wasting public funds on it. If compresed Natual Gas is the answer, then where are the cars that can run off it, and where are the stations to fill em up??? If Hydrogen fuel cells are the answer, wheres the car that uses them NOW?
But back to the Manhatan project… it actualy is a good example of government intervention… tell me, after the government created a technology that could supply almost limitless electricity, why don’t we have more Nuke Power in the US??? Could it be because Politicians were placed in charge of energy policy through the laws, and THEY decided it was a political looser because it was NOT really technologicly mature technology when it was tried? So it got a bad rap?
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Without all the regulations and court cost I doubt if fossil fuels would be even in the same area as far as cost goes over the long term.
as far as hydro the envitronmentalist have gotten several deactivated in the west for various reasons one of them being the salmon population.
every form of energy has it’s plus and minus. IMO the best bet is to have a wide range of energy production so one rise in input costs will not destroy the entire economy.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Wow. One of them finally admits to being completely irrational.
TheUnrepentantGeek on July 29, 2008 at 12:44 PM
IF wind and solar are workable, someone will do it WITHOUT government subsidies.
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Of course you are forgetting about the government subsides for their competition. Oil, coal, natural gas all recieve and have recieved numerous tax credits, hand outs, etc to propel it to its postion today.
If the oil industry never got a tax credit I would tend to agree with you. And don’t forget about the subsides in the form of miltary protection the oil producing states get today. 1 trillion dollars in Iraq war is a hell of a subsides for oil. Not saying it was all about oil but oil was a factor in the invasion. Or what about the first gulf war THAT was all about oil.
As far as your post about computers and economy of acale.
one of the first computers was produced in 1943 called ENIAC it was produced by uPenn due to a GOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT for $500, 000.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Not sure what you’re getting at with the regulations and courts. Do you mean coal produced power would be cheaper?
I’m not against a mix of energy, but I am against the government pushing solar and wind as a panacea for our energy woes. They are not even in the running. If you want to put solar panels on your roof and a windmill in your back yard I say go for it. If you mandate that I have to then I’m against it. If a hydro plant is viable the power companies will fight to keep it up. If they aren’t they’ll quietly accede and shut it down. We had two that we kept praying some environmental group would complain about so we could shut them down. We also had a state of the art solar plant. The best thing that ever came from it was that it caught on fire one night and burned to the ground.
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 12:55 PM
no i meant nuke would be cheaper.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 12:57 PM
[Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 12:30 PM]
[Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 12:40 PM]
Didn’t some Japanese firm, for some reason I’m thinking Toyota, come up with a package nuclear plant for large industry that could also power small communities of 2k or 3k size? I saw a story on it recently but can’t find it now. The package plant is all self contained, transportable and would have a 40 year life.
I want one for my backyard. I’ll hook it up to the electric coming in to the house and sell it to folks in my town. I’d love to be on the initiating end of year end electricity marketing — low cost, guaranteed fixed rate and neighborhood delivery. Plus I can home office it for the rest of my life. Woot!
Dusty on July 29, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Um, I keep hearing the Dem talking point about big Oil getting subsidies… but can’t seem to find them.
Now, just like any business, they do get TAX BREAKS for business expenses.. plant costs… research costs… exploration costs…things of that nature, but I can find NO evidence that, like ethanol, there has ever been a direct SUBSIDY for oil…
As to your assertion that Storm was a defacto oil subsidy?? HUH????
Yes, American oil companies made SOOOOO much money off of freeing Kuwait…
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 1:04 PM
By Nov., 2008, Obama will have invented exploration, and nuclear power, just like the French did.
Entelechy on July 29, 2008 at 1:06 PM
There were also small test plants put up at McMurdo station… but they cost a LOT of money as they were one off type of plants.
Question is would smaller plants become economicly feasible with todays technology IF we started to mass produce them…
Of course to do that you’d have to get Congress off their cans so they could fix the law saying we can’t reprocess fuel… and get Yuka mountain opened…
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Ah! Nuke was cheaper several years ago by a few cents per Kwhr on average. I assume it still is since several companies are making plans to build more. Regs for fossil plants have made it almost as expensive to build a coal plant as a nuke.
I do remember seeing something about this. They wanted to put one somewhere in a remote Alaskan village as a promotion. Don’t know what ever came of it.
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Here is a couple:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/oil-tax-break.asp
But when it comes to tax-advantaged investments for wealthy or sophisticated investors, one investment class continues to stand alone above all others: Oil. With the backing of the U.S. government, domestic energy production has created a litany of tax incentives for both investors and small producers.
There are, in fact, several major tax benefits available for oil and gas investors that are found nowhere else in the tax code. Read on as we cover the benefits of these investments, and how you can use them to fire up your investments.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I actually know some of the guys that operated the station at McMurdo! It was a tri-services plant identical to SL-1. I had coffee about a month ago with one of these guys. He’s a retired MCPO (sea bee). The training plant for these things was at Fort Belvoir Virginia. It was staged on a barge there. Given what happened to SL-1 I’ve always wondered about that choice of location.
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 1:18 PM
It would take courage on the parts of the Republicans, and courage is something that’s in short supply in elected Republicans.
Snake307 on July 29, 2008 at 11:44 AM
That’s why I always send a nice little note back to the RNC when they ask for money.
I’ll be glad to send you some money just as soon as you drop the man-made glowball warming scam and as soon as you start exercising some backbone when it comes to the liberals. I’ll be happy to send you money, but you get nothing until you demonstrate that you aren’t libs in sheep’s clothing.
belad on July 29, 2008 at 1:19 PM
You have given yourself away.
People pay a dollar for a bottle of water because the perceived value of the water is greater than the perceived value of the dollar, at that place, at that time, for that person.
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Yeah, between that and his “tax breaks for oil” meme, I had begun to wonder about Mr. Unseen myself… glad to know I am not the only one.
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 1:22 PM
I’m not sure that you and unseen aren’t saying the same thing :-)
Oldnuke on July 29, 2008 at 1:24 PM
[unseen on July 29, 2008 at 1:14 PM]
Which tax breaks listed at the site you linked do you consider subsidies?
Dusty on July 29, 2008 at 1:26 PM
I looked at your link… and I don’t see ANYTHING that I can’t already deduct as a small business owner.
Plant costs get depreciated. Employee salaries are not taxed at the business level. Cost of leases and such are a legit business expense. Taxes are on PROFIT… just like in the oil industry… and it does not look like they are getting any special break there. They are getting “Tax Breaks” on legitimate business expenses, just like every other business out there.
Only one in there I saw was the “small business” part… which is there so small owners can compete with the big companies…
So, once again, just where are the oil subsidies I keep hearing about?
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 1:42 PM
LOL
How badly do you want (need) the bottle of water?
We’re going to the democrats saying we want (need) to drill for oil, and they are saying we need to go on a diet.
OK fine, keep doing it democrats. The peasants will get hungry enough to bring out the pitch forks and guillotine.
Or maybe not. Count the votes, let every vote count.
Speak up or shut up, itsa free country, eh?
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Found it. It wasn’t Toyota. It was Toshiba and I saw it at an end of the year post at Instapundit. The Alaskan village was Galena.
Here’s a news article at World Nuclear News (the quality of which I don’t know anything about) that says one of the choke points is the NRC not having the capacity to do reviews of these proposed small system designs.
Dusty on July 29, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Whoops. WNN link. Gosh darn the interruptions.
Dusty on July 29, 2008 at 1:57 PM
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 1:20 PM
just because they “precieve vaule” for that place that time etc. Doesn’t mean they aren’t stupid. I didn’t think you wanted a straight answer to a stupid question. Stupid questions deserve a stupid answer IMO. Anyone with a 3rd grade education understands why the price is set as it is. Now if you want to be stupid answer this one. what would happen if the gas station had 1,000,000 bottles of water. would they raise prices? and what if they had only one bottle left? would the price stay the same? That’s about as stupid as your question.
Whatever it had to do with the conversation.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 2:02 PM
kiltedscotsman5 on July 29, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Wonder away it’s a free country.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Romeo13 on July 29, 2008 at 1:42 PM
What is your definition of subsidies?
there are many forms. Tax subsidies are the most used in the oil industry, then there is cheaper royalty payments, lower clean up cost with government shouldering some of the costs etc. Then you have tax breaks for drilling, pipelines, etc
here is a pretty good take on the different forms of subsides in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 2:11 PM
My question goes directly to the heart of the problem, and you fail to see it. More importantly, you accuse me of being uninformed, uneducated, and stupid, because you fail to see the importance of the question.
see my post of 1:52
we want, we need oil, cheap gasoline, cheap diesel, and you and your friends refuse to permit the rest of us to have what we want.
Just make sure there are more of you than there are of us.
Have a nice day.
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 2:19 PM
.
They tried that – you forgot a key element: filibuster, which dems used to stop domestic drililng, ANWR, etc. for several years. I recall all of this vividly, how come so many folks don’t know this?
Think_b4_speaking on July 29, 2008 at 2:26 PM
ALL effing democrats in Washington need holes drilled in their ignorant, stupid, idiotic heads. They’ve been brain dead for a long, long time, and are stinking up America. They need to be buried, and/or tossed on the junk heap.
byteshredder on July 29, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Ummm unseen hasn’t even answered my post per the Carbon Theory or the fact that Plate Techtonics is a theory.
Need I say more?
upinak on July 29, 2008 at 2:27 PM
.
Note very carefully the phrase ‘oil and gas investors‘ above. The oil specific tax breaks are not available to oil companies. None of the tax breaks which are offered to oil companies are exclusive – they are available to every business in the US.
Think_b4_speaking on July 29, 2008 at 2:33 PM
rockhauler on July 29, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Hmm, my friends refuse to permit it? where exactly did you learn to read? I am 100% for more drilling. I’m for opening up the oil shale, for drilling in ANWR, for drilling in OCS etc. I am also for wind/solar/geothermal/nuclear etc. I am for diversication of our energy resources. I’m for ethanol also if done correctly. add in fuel cells, better engines like the revtec etc.
As far as how prices are set if you need that explained to you more power too you.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 2:34 PM
upinak on July 29, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Let me get this straight you don’t think plate tectonics is real? and I did reply to you post.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Think_b4_speaking on July 29, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I would consider this tax credit a subsidy:
if approved, the measure would eliminate a tax credit allowing industry to dramatically reduce the amount of taxes – by roughly $300 million – it pays the state each year on fossil fuels it extracts from underneath Colorado soil.
Only one other state, Kansas, offers a similar tax credit.
Initiative backers face a well-financed opponent. Reports filed Thursday show three energy giants – Chevron Corp., EnCana Oil & Gas and Williams Companies – each threw in $1 million to fight the proposal. Two other firms gave an additional $600,000.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/08/drilling-tax-backers-raise-450800/
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 2:40 PM
plate tectonics just hitin CA with a big eathquake
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 2:45 PM
5.7 magnitude.
unseen on July 29, 2008 at 2:46 PM
You didn’t read my post and you are seriously getting on my nerves. Maybe you should do the liberal thing and Wiki it.. AKA it is a THEORY NOT A FREAKING LAW OF SCIENCE! As I said in my post! You obviously do not read everyones posts.
And as for you post on States giving credits… you need to do some more research. Rocky Mountain News isn’t an only source. Try PennWell, IHS, or another Oil based feeder news company. Alaska, Nevada, Montana give credits to those who are doing exploration as the Federal government did, until Pelosi yanked it.
upinak on July 29, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »