“Gang of 10″ compromise on energy?
posted at 1:10 pm on August 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Fox News has a breaking story that key Senators from both parties may have reached a compromise on energy that includes allowing for drilling in the outer continental shelf (OCS). It would take a kitchen-sink approach urged by Republicans all along — more work on alternatives and conservation, but also the removal of restrictions on domestic production to alleviate the supply crisis in the world market. It also pointedly excludes the populist demonization of commodities traders:
A bipartisan group of 10 senators offered an energy plan Friday aimed at producing more domestic oil via offshore drilling, reducing energy prices, and aiding the troubled economy.
The plan also would require automobiles to be more fuel efficient and would provide research money for improved batteries to move away from petroleum-products in cars: the plan calls for 85 percent of vehicles to run on non-petroleum-based fuel in 20 years.
Senators said the bill also would promote more renewable energy sources and nuclear energy, as well as carbon capture techniques to reduce greenhouse gas production through tax and other incentives.
The plan would lift restrictions off of the Atlantic coast and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Drilling would take place 50 miles or more from shore to buffer the coast from any potential environmental damage. The report does not specify whether the plan will open the interior for drilling for oil shale and natural gas.
Those in the gang of 10 are Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La; Saxby Chambliss; R-Ga, John Thune, R-S.D.; Ben Nelson, D-Neb.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Mark Pryor, D-Ark.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.; and Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
Harry Reid, on his way out of town, issued a mildly supportive statement, and Nancy Pelosi hasn’t yet commented. This compromise could save the Democrats from their own leadership, and it represents a major rebellion against the hard-line demagoguery provided by Reid and Pelosi. This expansion represents a good start to restoring some common sense to American energy policy and marginalizing the radical environmentalists who have taken it hostage for a generation.
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: 1 2 Next »
STOOOOOPIIID!
WTF are they going to run it on? Cow farts and a Dream?
upinak on August 1, 2008 at 1:14 PM
A small step in the right direction.
infidel on August 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Cow farts are more polluting than car emissions. Fairy dust and unicorn farts. Hope and change.
Denial: no longer just a river in Egypt.
Anna on August 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM
YES WE CAN!
el hombre on August 1, 2008 at 1:17 PM
You’re awesome lol!
GoodBoy on August 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM
I don’t like the 20 year thing either. I hope the Republicans don’t paint us in the corner.
We have enough oil in the mid-west for over 100 years without importing a drop. Why be forced to abandon that with a forced timescale?
Darksean on August 1, 2008 at 1:18 PM
with the progress in batteries and solar lately. 20 years is not an unreasonable goal.
the point was, that while we are developing these fuels, let’s drill for oil and keep the prices down so the economy doesn’t suffer.
does the plan include shale? I thought that was quicker and cheaper to get to market?
lorien1973 on August 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is a group of 22 House members from both sides that are working on a similar proposal. This is great news and I am sure Harry and Nancy are wetting themselves about now.
bopbottle on August 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Well Heck, why don’t we all eat beans, have a capture area for farts in our bucket seats (like a Nasa toilet) and run off those.
Ugh, Democrats and the energy crisis is making me want to explode. I need to get some more coffee and a beano!
upinak on August 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Democrats don’t have much depth of thought. They need timetables to help make it easier for them to judge what is happening.
Rogue Traveler on August 1, 2008 at 1:22 PM
While I’m not thrilled about potentially taking the best campaign topic off the table for the stretch run, I’d sure love the relief in gas and food prices. It would also force the Obamessiah to actually get a vote (oh wait, he likes to be ‘present’) on the record.
Darksean on August 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM
You’re right, but I think the R’s expect this goal to have all the success of Kyoto.
drjohn on August 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM
why? takes the issue off the table for the election. people will say, problem solved. It’s actually politically stupid of republicans to do this.
lorien1973 on August 1, 2008 at 1:23 PM
The looming Sept 30th appropriations re-authorization bill has the Dems by the gazingos. Remeber, the re-auth bill includes a yearly reauthorization of the drilling ban. They either cut a deal now or face a GOP led gov’t shutdown with energy agendas as the fulcrum. Drill Here, Drill Now vs. Drill Nowhere, Drill Never. They must realize that they’ll hand the general and many down ticket races to the Repubs based on that impending showdown, just 30 days before the elections.
DrW on August 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM
yeah, 85% sounds whack. But, I think we’d be smart to switch to compressed natural gas which is liquified for vehicles. It’s a domestic product, not technologically difficult to do. I think the refilling infrastructure has to be built, but it should.
JiangxiDad on August 1, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Thumbs down on this deal. We need to use this opportunity to get much more than is being offered with this. What about refineries, how does this deal help? We could find an ocean of oil but if we don’t have the capacity to refine it, we are no better off than we are now.
The Republicans should not let this opportunity escape, we need a major roll-back of environmental laws and obstacles that are preventing energy independence. What about development of nuclear power, is there anything in the deal about building nuclear power plants? We need them. Looks to me the Republican are letting the Democrats off the hook and we are getting nothing in return that will really help.
Maxx on August 1, 2008 at 1:25 PM
BULLSHIT … TO LITTLE, TO LATE…
GO ON VACATION. WE’LL CATCH YOUR BUTTS IN NOVEMBER!
byteshredder on August 1, 2008 at 1:26 PM
A great step in the right direction. Nuclear fuel, conservation, offshore drilling, energy alternatives, etc..
amerpundit on August 1, 2008 at 1:27 PM
I’m down with that.
Anna on August 1, 2008 at 1:28 PM
why should GOP compromise? we are winning this issue, i’m so tired of Republicans giving Democrats a way to weasel out. we shouldn’t settle for “some” drilling, we should remove all of the bans, now.
thankful on August 1, 2008 at 1:30 PM
If it were all new vehicles in 20 years….maybe. All cars period, not a chance. Fuel cells have come a long way. One thing to include though, is opening up of nukular, to help handle the higher load on the grid.
bikermailman on August 1, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Force Pelosi and Reid to visit an offshore oil rig and make them start the drilling….
Travis1 on August 1, 2008 at 1:34 PM
At least cow farts have methane! There’s the solution…….stick up in the rectum of every cow and strap a vacuum tank to their backs to capture the methane emissions from every cow. Methane is a global warming gas, doncha know.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 1, 2008 at 1:34 PM
This is great. Now, let’s open ANWR. I think 85 percent of cars in two decades is attainable. It says non-petroleum. That could mean natural gas, hydrogen, or electric. Solid proposal. Hope Reid and that idiot woman from San Francisco agree.
fleiter on August 1, 2008 at 1:34 PM
And what about the rest of the planet?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on August 1, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Time for another Pelosi rictus.
whitetop on August 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM
fleiter… this is NOT great. this is less than a half loaf. and it gives Dems the ability to run up for election saying they support drilling, when they don’t. this opens up only a portion of OCS… What about California? What about Alaska? There won’t be a second bite at the apple this year. Republicans should hold out for a full repeal on the bans or take it to election day.
thankful on August 1, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Amazing……..
I will believe it when it actually happens……… until then, it’s just more CO2 coming out of Washington…….
Seven Percent Solution on August 1, 2008 at 1:37 PM
This thing has $85 Billion in TAX HIKES??? “The plan is estimated to cost $85 billion, but would be offset with “loophole closers and other revenues,” including money from the new leases and from closing a oil industry manufacturing tax credit.”
thankful on August 1, 2008 at 1:38 PM
“85 percent of vehicles.”
Buy our new model year ‘29 Super Hummer-Ultra SUV and get 5 bicycles free!
pedestrian on August 1, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Does anyone remember the Movie: Thunderdoom?
Think about it… pig poop = methane.
So what is this “plan” the dems have, that will create jobs and energy! Good grief I can see it now. A Unionized Pig Poop Shovel Employee, Chapter 666.
upinak on August 1, 2008 at 1:38 PM
According to this article it looks like the “grand compromise” would NEARLY BAN GAS CARS within 20 years? Is this the deal we want to make? “inject $20 billion to transition 85 percent of country’s motor vehicles so they can be powered by non-petroleum-based fuels within 20 years”
thankful on August 1, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Placing party good above the good of the nation is a plan for failure of both parties ultimately. I see this bi-partisan effort as an attempt to pacify the electorate, and head off any radical changes that are sure to take place in a U.S. with five dollar a gallon fuel prices. A five dollar a gallon world would be very dangerous for both republicans and democrats.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM
This “plan” is a big nothing. No idea what the support for it is, no idea what it includes, its just nothing but a totally empty promise that …. we will do something.
Maxx on August 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Too bad “tarring and feathering” is out of vogue. If it wasn’t we could tar and feather every one of these brain dead, jackass politicians and run them out of town. They are such a disgusting gaggle of self-serving humanity.
rplat on August 1, 2008 at 1:43 PM
The Tar and Feather routine is now called smearing.
Same concept, but instead of wicked scars from heat, it is all about taking down your life and work.
upinak on August 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Ed,
2 House Members (Dem and Repub) were on Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs last night. It was their second time on Beck’s show. They put together a closed door piece of legislation without any input from house leadership or outside lobbyists. It’s pretty comprehensive.
Could you or AP maybe take a look into that and help spread the word? They’re going to try and bring it to the floor in September.
BadgerHawk on August 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Takes too long takes too long, the idiocy of this is astounding. Even if it takes 10 years, where would we be in 10 years?
- The Cat
P.S. You can’t force ingenuity and innovation. Inspire yes, legislate no.
MirCat on August 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
The GOP should hold firm and not have this timetable. It’s absurd.
It cracks me up; pollute the earth with mercury from CFLB (which you aren’t supposed to recycle), batteries which poison the earth and charge your cars with electricity created from coal or oil burning plants (primarily), but dammit, don’t use gas in your car! That pollutes! Algore sez so!
linlithgow on August 1, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Also, the house plan does open the interior for shale producction.
BadgerHawk on August 1, 2008 at 1:48 PM
This is now conclusive proof that if we keep this same bunch of certified numbskulls in office, regardless of party affiliation, absolutely nothing is going to be accomplished here and it is we, not any of them, who are going to wind up suffering!
DEMAND TERM LIMITATION NOW!
RECALL THESE IDIOTS FROM OFFICE NOW!
These fools had their chance and they blew it!
We need people in there who will get the job done, NOT POLITICIANS!
pilamaye on August 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Why are the Republicans taking this issue off the table?
sabbott on August 1, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Do you really think Congress or the Senate are going to vote themselves their own term limits?
upinak on August 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM
And she’s a Soldier too. Good on you upinak!
Entelechy on August 1, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Republicans need to press, press, press this issue and take advantage of the cracks forming in the Democrats.
But hope that no deal can be made. Use it for the November elections.
If they had any leadership on this, they’d pounce on it.
For all of his faults, Newt would have seized on this in a second.
SteveMG on August 1, 2008 at 1:52 PM
First of all, who cares what happens in 20 years, as far as the cars go, lets get them drilling now.
20 years could turn into 40 years. At some point we have to encourage the auto industry to produce cars that run on alternative fuels.
But the key is to say we will start drilling, that will lower the prices, then once someone makes a claim of a huge find, prices will fall, then once it starts coming out of the ground, it will fall, but of course we will not be able to refine it any quicker, but heck, at least the money stays here instead of going to KSA.
WoosterOh on August 1, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Indeed. S/b on the table constantly until Nov. 2008, and beyond. It affects just about every single voter.
Entelechy on August 1, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I think the air car will win. It fits easy into the infrastructure, and I like the idea of centralizing pollution into power plants. It’s much easier to keep tabs on a few large, non-moving power plants, than monitor the millions of small mobile power plants that we currently use.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Ummm…there are only nine members listed in the “Gang of 10.”
That’s Congress, all right. Yup. Yup.
MrScribbler on August 1, 2008 at 1:54 PM
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM
This is just a cheap political trick to take pressure off the Democrats. This so called “plan” is no plan at all, its nothing but cheap talk. It must be assumed that not a single thing is resolved, because in fact, nothing is.
This should not dampen the cry for energy independence in the least. The Democrats and the Republicans in this “gang” should be held responsible for doing NOTHING before their break.
Maxx on August 1, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Holy crap!
BallisticBob on August 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM
When did it become the job of congress to tell industry what they must produce and how to do it? Those who plotted to take over the oil industry to ration energy in an effort to control the population have suffered a slight setback in their try to increase government intrusion into every area of our lives. Pelosi and Reid are traitors to this nation and our constitution. The left does not care about you, it just wants control.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on August 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Entelechy, I had to opt out. :( I singed the paperwork a little over a week ago.
My Mom is going to have total mitrovalve replacement (serious open heart surgury) within a year. The Army will not let me have 3 and a half months off for her recovery even on FMLA, because I am not back in yet and there is no guarantee they would let me have it after I went back in. This is her second open heart surgury and they are usually worse then the first. I am the only living responsible child.
It really bothered me to do it, but Family comes first. Then the Nation. I may still go if she is good to go afterwards. But it will still be 2 yrs after the fact.
upinak on August 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM
20 years? I own a 20 year old Mercedes 560SEL. Only takes premium. Only drive it for long trips down to DC and back once every couple months or out West to visit my kid in the Marine Corps. Costs a bit to fill the tank, but after a bit of tweaking, I average about 30+mpg on the Interstate…and about 15mpg in city traffic, so I drive a ten year old Geo in town, gets a lot better mileage, but is a tough drive for this old grey dog on any trip over a couple hours…
Anyway…what am I supposed to do if this 85% thing becomes a matter of law? The Geo will have died by then, but the Mercedes? It is in cherry condition. A classic, its value is going up each year after bottoming out a few years ago. Will be getting “vintage” plates for it next year. Am turning the pink slip over to my oldest son when it comes time for me to shuffle off my mortal coil. Now, because of this 85% thing, am I supposed to scrap it? So, the government can take my property or require me to dispose of it?
Oh, wait a second, they can…after all SCOTUS said so in Kelo.
Never mind.
The point is…this 85% mandate is based on what reality?
IF alternative fuel car producers and the big auto makers as well, would take an initial loss in profits and turn out a reliable safe and fuel efficient car at a price the normal American can afford…say about $15-20k, natural market forces would enable some sort of high range percentage of vehicles to be alternatively fueled well within that 20 year period, and end up being profitable for the car makers over the long run. So long as one has to shell out between $55-120k for one of these reliable efficient, safe cars(just looking over the current pricing) where is the money going to come from? Making a serious choice between eating, feeding a family, investing in one’s business, taking care of medical costs…or being required to purchases a $55k car. This makes sense how?
coldwarrior on August 1, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Recover the oil you can, everywhere you find it. We can not continue to be held economically hostage to our enemies.
infidel on August 1, 2008 at 2:05 PM
That’s the problem Bob, this dumb compromise doesn’t open up California waters to offshore drilling, denying the majority in that state to reap the benefits of their natural resources. This Gang of 10 seems as lame as the Gang of 14 and the Kennedy Amnesty Gang.
thankful on August 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Sounds like too big a compromise with the left. In return for them doing what the American people want them to do (allow drilling) the GOP gives in on all sorts of bad ideas.
For instance;
It’s like we live in the USSR.
flenser on August 1, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Much like the Gang Of 14. I see that several of the same people are involved here, including McCains mini-me.
flenser on August 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Maybe some of these future cars will run on those yellow fluffy peeping things that come out of MoveOn.org eggs. Ya know..hope.
shick on August 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I happened in on part of this — LOL.
tarpon on August 1, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Nothing like that will happen. How many people do you know who drive 20 year old cars? These are the same people who have their houses paid off, and have no credit card debt, or in other words microscopic minority. Your soon to be classic car will be safe, and uncrushed. Alternative fuel cars won’t be absurdly expensive after mass adoption of the technology. The air car is due to begin production in India, and so it will have to be cheap to sell.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Can you cite any resources on that? Because it looks to me like alternative fuel cars wil increase in price if they are adapted on a large scale, for basic supply and demand reasons.
flenser on August 1, 2008 at 2:14 PM
While Democratic intransigence on this would help Republicans in the fall, to say you don’t want to do anything about it now in order to have the issue in November is as bad as the Democrats fighting against taking any action on various issues like military funding prior to 2006 when they were in the minority, in order to have that as an issue in the general election.
It comes off as both short-sighted and makes the elected officials seem as if they’re more interested in a game of “gotcha” then they are with actually increasing the country’s options for drilling. Even if this does help Democrats by saving them from themselves, the GOP would be stupid not to jump on this before the Democrats do (and given the fervor the environmentalist types have against any type of drilling, odds are at least 3-1 to 4-1 that neither Pelosi nor Obama will go for this anyway, meaning McCain and GOP can probably sign onto the compromise and still have the issue on their side come November).
jon1979 on August 1, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Hey Upinak, great idea. I’ll cook the beans and roast fresh coffee. Pintos with ham hocks and fresh baked corn bread. Skip the beano though.
Oldnuke on August 1, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I like the air car, so thats what I reference. Tada is going to manufacture the air car in India, and I forget the target price, but to be sold in volume in India it will have to be cheap. Why would it increase in price because the technology is adopted on a large scale? Did mass adoption increase or decrease the cost of your DVD player?
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 2:20 PM
India? That’s the “air car” you’re talking about? Would turn a crash-test dummy into soup at any impact above 20mph. And, why would we be willing once again to send American dollars overseas instead of designing, producing, and marketing a product here? Of course, I remember the K-cars and such in the 70’s. The Japanese had us for lunch from that point onward, still do. But, still, why buy overseas? Isn’t that what we are facing with the $700 billion going overseas for oil right now?
Maybe, after the bugs are worked out, and a safe reliable vehicle can be produced in volume here in the States at a price the average American family can afford…not all things will remain constant in this economic model…inflation and such as big oil and other profit-making companies are being taxed, as are we through confiscatory income taxes and increases.
Funny thing about the auto market…I remember the Edsel. Was a young kid back then. But it bombed. No one bought it. Ford quite near went into receivership over that gem. In order to be profitable, car makers need to be able to turn the public towards purchase of particular model(s) of car, then they can try to keep the price low through volume…but that last just so long, as wages creep upwards and other costs of production increase as well.
So…what model is going to hit the roads first, make that impression on the average American, so much so that the car maker can turn these puppies out in volume, with confidence they will not lose their shirt (and that of their investors) in the process? That Prius really caught on, didn’t it? Net loss, over all.
Government can “mandate” all they want. Market forces will determine scope and range of production. With cars, desireability is a factor not found in most other necessities. Unless, we want the government to take over the auto industry, and force us to buy whatever model is available, desired or not.
coldwarrior on August 1, 2008 at 2:24 PM
“Democrats are for alternative energy.” Translation: they have buddies that bought into failed alternative energy ventures that they want to bail out.
spmat on August 1, 2008 at 2:25 PM
How does the air car help matters? Compressed air is not a primary power source, it’s a way of storing energy. Not a very efficent way either.
If 85% of the cars in the US somehow switched to compressed air, the price of electricity (used to compress the air) will increase by a few thousand percent. There’s no free lunch.
DVD players do not utilise any scarce materials. They are made mostly of plastic, and not much of that. Battery powered cars or hydrogen fuel cells are a completely different matter.
flenser on August 1, 2008 at 2:31 PM
The target market is India, and not a U.S. import, so it meets India’s crash standards and not ours. The company that is developing the air car franchises out production for each country. I don’t know if anybody has bought the U.S. franchise yet. Here is the link to their website: aircar
I would prefer a U.S. designed vehicle, but we are focusing on electric and fuel cell technology, and as I said I like this technology.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM
flenser on August 1, 2008 at 2:31 PM –
An “air car” in the streets of Mumbai or Madras or new Delhi has a certain appeal. Ever drive over there? not a lot of speeds above 25mph for the most part. On the highway? Have to tow a trailer filled with compressed air cylinders to drive from Toledo to Cleveland, and speeds would be in the 25-35 mph range. The inefficiencies of stored compressed air cannot defy the basic laws of physics. As the volume of air in the cylinder decreases, the motive power of the remaining air becomes less and less till it hits oppositional forces and the car stops. For short hops from home to Starbucks on the corner, sure, not a problem. But what is the average distance most Americans live from their place of employment? From their sources of food and services? Manhattan is one thing. Indianapolis is quite another.
coldwarrior on August 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Are you going to make me site examples of production items that contain rare materials that have dropped in price, since your typing on one(computer) now?
I’m not claiming there is, but I like the way this technology fits into the infrastructure. It would require an increase in domestic production of electricity with coal, natural gas, nuclear, but all those are available in abundance. It would only require the installation of compressors at gas stations and not installation of a new fuel distribution system. It also wouldn’t create the waste that millions of used auto batteries would. Like I said I like this technology.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
The demo response here was light years away from bi-partisan compromise. They refuse to understand that you can’t drive your car with wind, hydro or solar power.
When i comment about various idiot Demos my daughter has said, ‘Well, you can’t polish a turd’.
Christine on August 1, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Drill now, drill everywhere… don’t compromise.
We could, if we wished be an OIL EXPORTER!!! Heck, lets let other countries pay us to switch fix our infrastructure…
Lets use oil revenues to give incentives for Nuc Power. Its an investment in the future folks.
Romeo13 on August 1, 2008 at 2:46 PM
You’re right of course, but there aren’t enough details to say that you couldn’t get a reasonable 300 mile range with a descent speed. Currently we have to stop at approximately 300 miles to refuel anyway so it’s not an unfamiliar experience. There are several technologies currently under development that may pan out and “win”, but ultimately we don’t know which is going to come out on top, but this is my horse in that race.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
A horse and buggy fit into the infrastructure quite well. I head down to Apple Valley (Amish country) here in Ohio a couple times a year. Clean. Bio-degradeable…and if times get tough, you can eat the motive force.
Not to sound flip…but we can do better than this…or the “air car.”
But compelling an artificial timetable to do so, regardless of the technologies available and those yet discovered and implemented seems to be a wrong way to go about it.
The problem with grabbing on to the “latest” novel idea/technology is that it may not be the best, most efficient, safest alternative. And then what? Those lead-based batteries cannot be disposed of safely, just as those wonderful Goracle mini-flourescents with their mercury charge cannot be disposed of safely.
I like the idea of a cash prize/tax abatement and proprietary rights to individuals or companies who discover, test and evaluate and produce safe, efficient and marketable alternative fueled vehicles. Let the most craven of market forces drive the program. This has worked for every new technological discovery over the past century.
coldwarrior on August 1, 2008 at 2:50 PM
This Nebraskan is glad to have voted for Sen. Nelson D-NE.
Yakko77 on August 1, 2008 at 2:53 PM
What rare materials are used in quantity in computers They’re made of mostly silicon and plastic.
If we’re going to increase all these things then why do we need air cars? The problem is that the Dems won’t permit increased production of electricty via coal, natual gas, nuclear, or oil.
In other words, the problem is the amount of energy. Air cars do nothing to alleviate this.
It would require the construction of vast numbers of new electical generation plants, and a whole new electrical distribution grid to get this power where it needs to go.
It would also require Americas automoble drivers to accept an inferior substitue for their current cars.
flenser on August 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Yeah, I laugh every time I hear one of the WE commercials for the environemnt…
“IF enough of us speak out, they will have to create renewable energy”
Like technology development is driven by people yelling… I know we live in a Democracy, but get real folks… even a majority cannot repeal the laws of physics.
Romeo13 on August 1, 2008 at 3:00 PM
I don’t care much for animals bigger than me, so I probably won’t jump onto the horse/buggy bandwagon, but you have to remember that cars have been with us for a very long time, and undergo refinement annually. Small changes but over 50 years they add up, so you can’t expect any of these new technologies to be anywhere near as refined as our current automobile.
I agree with you, and I didn’t mean to suggest that I support a forced 20 year conversion, but why the fuss now? The government has been mandating automotive design for decades, and no one has put up much resistance. I personally didn’t care much for OBD III, but apparently most of the issues I had with it were stripped.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM
No doubt.
I just found it absolutely amazing that a stae that has given our country such notable figures as the Govuh-nator, Pelosi, Feinstein, Waters, Waxman, Boxer, etc. would actually have a majority of its citizens favor something that is completely against what these dopes want.
BallisticBob on August 1, 2008 at 3:07 PM
The ideal would be batteries powered by nuclear/wind/solar/hydroelectic/etc. sources. Why all the bashing of electric cars? We should use hydrocarbons as long as necesary, but we shouldn’t fetishize them.
Big S on August 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM
One of the aspects of this “let’s jump on the new technologies” bandwagon that is not mentioned is that in order to restructure the economy to meet the production and use of these new technologies, we are going to have to be able to live with higher unemployment over the short run, or face extreme inflationary pressures in that same short run, as limited labor has to be purchased at market prices to run the new technologies…or we “force” the creation of cheap labor by massive shutdowns and layoffs in our current industrial and service sectors. Do that, and all the rest of the economy will be afectted downward as well over the short run.
it has happened before in our histroy, though we didn’t have the current mood and societal demands then as we have now. Our transitioning from canal boats to rail cost a lot of jobs and forced a lot of people in the East to head elsewhere. Our transisttioning from rail to trucking…resulted in the loss of jobs, loss of various support sectors of the rail industry, having a present rail industry that cannot compete in the marketplace without massive government supports…just to cite one set of examples of a technological transition.
Given our propensity to demand instant gratification and that nobody gets hurt along the way…the current societal mood…how is that transition from oil-based economies to alternative fuel economies going to pan out in the short run? In the long run?
Doing A, and then B, and “something magic happens” and then D seems to not be a good way to plan out the next technological transisition.
Force artificial timetables and percentages into the mix, and this Gang of 10 proposal may do a lot of serious damage to our economy before the dust settles.
coldwarrior on August 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM
When oil becomes expensive enough then coal conversion exists, and natural gas vehicles already exist, but I think they are more dangerous than regular autos, but I am intrigued with the thought of an atomic powered car.
I’m not supporting the democrats here, I’m supporting my favorite alternative fuel vehicle. I didn’t say my favorite vehicle, I said my favorite alternative fuel vehicle. I personally would love to keep driving my F250, but for obvious reasons I don’t drive it as much these days.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I drove a F150 for years. Since I don’t do too much hauling anymore, I would prefer one of these. The idea behind the funding of battery research (by McCain and others) is to bump the range up from 220 miles to something like 400-500 miles, and bring the cost down a bit. Plug-in electric cars are not as far off as the fossil fuel partisans would like people to think.
Big S on August 1, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Just watch out for Dem treachery, i.e. they allow drilling with so many conditions that drilling is impossible. They did this to make nuclear so damned expensive. Also there needs to be legislation to keep the eco-Marxists from dragging everyone to court day after day. And shale is a must.
DerKrieger on August 1, 2008 at 3:25 PM
My only problem with the electric car is the batteries. I saw an example of a flywheel powered electric car and it had some amazing capabilities, but I have worked around battery powered industrial equipment, and it’s no picnic. I don’t know if people who are dreaming of electric cars are prepared for the reality of dealing with the batteries.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 3:26 PM
They’re heavy, slow, and expensive. That’s not bashing them, just pointing out the facts.
flenser on August 1, 2008 at 3:26 PM
General Motors actually built a jet powered car back in the 1950’s, and was in the design stage for an atomic powered car as well. The jet powered car actually made a nationwide tour. Didn’t pan out. In city traffic it would incinerate the car behind it or any pedestrian who was dumb enough to walk within 20 yards of the rear of the vehicle when it was running. Could clear the snow and ice off a driveway, though, and I remember a few televised clips of this when I was young.
The atomnic car…not so good…in order to build it the majority of the weight went into shielding (unless you, as the driver, or passenger, didn’t mind having a second career as a streetlamp when the sun went down) which then necessitated a larger reactor, which necessitated a larger amount of shielding…and that was only one of the engineering problems that couldn’t be solved back then.
Today? Might be a possibility. We have had a few space vehicles for deep space exploration powered by atomic sources. But, radiation and contamination 1,000,000 miles in space isn’t a big concern. In downtown LA? And the possibility of all that nuclear material on the street…and a chop shop could make a fortune selling it to some bad very bad people who don’t have the capacity of producing their won…
I’ll pass on that one.
For most efficient motive power, hydrocarbons are gonig to be around for a long long time…a matter of physics…even ethanol is a hydrocarbon…but has less of a punch when it comes to energy than petroleum fuels. That is where bio-mass research is concentrating a good portion of its efforts…punch up the energy of bio-mass fuels to a level where maximum efficiencies can be obtained. Those NHRA guys use fuels at octane levels not legal for street use, but the power punch of those fuels is many levels about simple Exxon regular gas. If we can develop bio-mass fuels with that sort of punch…somebody is going to make a lot of money, then Congress will be complaining about those nasty bio-mass barons and their profits!!!
coldwarrior on August 1, 2008 at 3:29 PM
“…is many levels about simple Exxon regular gas…”
should read: …”many levels above….”
(Sorry, I was up late last night.)
coldwarrior on August 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Hey, internal combustion engines are no picnic either.
Big S on August 1, 2008 at 3:40 PM
I know. My other vehicle is a volkswagen diesel, and it’s a real knuckle buster.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 3:54 PM
and to move toward more coal in power plants.
burt on August 1, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Bet ya didn’t see $4.75 a gallon diesel on the horizon when you bought that VW.
I feel for ya. My car only runs on Premium. Regular really fouls up the entire system. Thank goodness it is starting to increase in value as a classic.
coldwarrior on August 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM
I average 46 mpg in that car, so that makes diesel prices a bit easier to swallow.
DFCtomm on August 1, 2008 at 4:07 PM
well there goes the “old” guys only hope. Of course these new compromises to drill for oil off the US coast is totally meaningless and worthless unless it requires Big Oil to sell US oil only in the US, which won’t happen. They can also remove the word “foreign” from our addiction description, it’s not that we are addicted to foreign oil it is we are addicted to oil.
Oh well, another GOP “hot” election topic by the wayside!
Monkei on August 1, 2008 at 4:17 PM
I agree, they should agree to allow for 2 new refineries to be built and for old refineries to build 1 add on each and to do maintenance..
Chakra Hammer on August 1, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Exactly.
Our withdrawal from hydrocarbon fueled vehicles should be based on conditions on the ground.
Maquis on August 1, 2008 at 4:24 PM
Much as the original Gang of 14 undercut the constitutional process, this may cause more trouble than needed. According to some reports http://tinyurl.com/6afals the law blocking drilling on the OCS etc must be renewed by September 30th, or it all expires. One would think we could put a lot of pressure on the GOP to stand firm, and insure the President does not sign any bill with an extension.
TREGONSEE on August 1, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »