Democrat Energy Policy

[The New Guy]

speaking of the environment here's a clip i posted in another thread but it certainly works well here:

youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

[jgaffney]

"The planet is fine! The people are f**ked!"

RIP, George.

[jgaffney]

Here's an interesting take on ANWR, from the people who would be most affected by any drilling there.

Just like offshore drilling, why should it be a national issue? Why doesn't Congress devolve the question to the states that would be affected? What does Iowa care what we do off our coast?

The answer is easy, and it bears a remarkable similarity to Roe v. Wade. The Left does not want to fight the individual battles in each state. They want to make it a national issue so that they only have to fight one battle. And, in that battle, the horsetrading on issues that absolutely nothing to do with the core question would make your head spin. They coined a word for this back in the 1800's. Those of you who were awake in History class will remember when the concept of "logrolling" was introduced.

So, now we are stuck with a national energy policy that:

• locks up a majority of our national resources.
  
  
• forces us to ship billions of dollars out of the country.
  
  
• looks forward to a day when we will be petroleum free, without any contingency plans for what happens between now and then.

Think about it: if a hydrogen-powered car was available tomorrow for $60,000, would you buy one? If you were able to buy a $60,000 hydrogen-powered car tomorrow, where would you refill it? What would you do with your $60,000 hydrogen-powered car between now and when the rest of the infrastructure caught up to you?

I don't know about you, but I'm planning on getting another 3-5 years out of my car. I hope that new technology is available when I can afford to replace it, but I still need a car. Does that mean I have to suffer with $5 or $8 a gallon gas while I'm waiting for the "new" energy to become widely available?

[saunterelle]

If we put money into developing more products like these: www.ecoproducts.com/ we could one day ween ourselves off petroleum based products altogether.

[jgaffney]

Jun 25, 2008 11:51:53 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

If we put money into developing more products like these: www.ecoproducts.com/ we could one day ween ourselves off petroleum based products altogether.

Saunterelle, you have unwittingly made our point for us. You said, "we could one day wean ourselves..." Can you define when that day will be? Can you tell us what our energy policy should be until that day comes? Can you tell us what you are doing personally until that day comes?

[mrroqout]

So while I love your idea in Theory Saunterelle here is the REALITY of the situation.

I compared the price of one standard item on that page.

I Chose your good old 24oz cold cup.

A case of "CORN based" 24oz Cold Cups will cost you - 149 dollars and some change

A Case of "NOT Corn based" 24oz Cold Cups will cost you - 85 dollars and some change.

A difference of 64 dollars , so either the price of your iced tea just jumped significantly.

OR the retailers profit margin just took a giant dive.

And I am sure that just like corn based ethanol the energy output to make these items is greater than the outcome. So the factory processes in making these cups uses 1.5-2x the energy as the non-corn based factory most likely. (I haven't done the research here but it has to be similar to corn based ethanol)

Not to mention there could NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be enough Corn grown on earth to make this corn based products idea, corn based ethanol and all your other corny ideas (SORRY had to) work...and still have people be able to eat...

Corn is not the answer.

[saunterelle]

Good analysis of the pros and cons of nuclear energy in today's Wall St. Journal: online.wsj.com/article/SB121432182593500119.html?mod=2_1586_topbox

[jgaffney]

Saunterelle, can you please tell us when you foresee alternatives being available to petroleum fuels? Can you tell us what we should do between now and then?

[saunterelle]

I'm curious what you think of Picken's plan as a solution between now and the day alternative fuels are ready to take the place of petroleum: www.pickensplan.com

[jgaffney]

An interesting presentation by T. Boone Pickens, formerly one of those greedy oil companies that you profess to hate. Now that he is proposing wind power, you're ready to embrace him?

You can bet that, if T. Boone Pickens is pushing wind power, it's not because he thinks it's what's best for the country, but because he sees it as a profit opportunity for his company.

But, let's take a look at some of his ideas. Pickens wants to take the 22% of electricity that is generated with natural gas, and replace it with wind-generated electricity. Pickens focuses mostly on areas in the central US, where he undoubtedly has land holdings.

While distributed power generation, like windmill farms or solar arrays, has been espoused by the left in the past, the implementation of the idea has been opposed. For instance, when SDG&E proposed a solar array in the southeastern California desert, they ran into a firestorm of opposition. Windmill farms have been consistently attacked by environmentalists for being a threat to raptors, although I've never seen a bunch of shredded hawks at Altamont.

Pickens then wants to redistribute the natural gas that was being used to generate electricity into transportation. Pickens does not mention how much of our natural gas is currently imported, or how difficult it is to establish a new CNG terminal. A friend of mine in Oregon is leading a fight against a CNG terminal on the Columbia River near Portland, a major user of CNG, because "it's just not the right place."

But, CNG cars are available today, and refueling stations are available to the public. This is no pie-in-the-sky concept that will take years to bring on line, like hydrogen fuel cell powered cars. So, Saunterelle, you can show your leadership on this issue by buying a CNG Honda right now. They're only $25,000 list, but what does that matter when it's for the good of the environment! Let us know how you progress on that front.

[bolverk]

Crude oil is the future, and it will be much cheaper then the alternative fuels the Democrats think will work. Crude oil is now sustainable and renewable, and contains a lower carbon foot print. And, according to the article, will lower the price to $50 a barrel for crude oil from this source. Read the Source for yourself.

[jgaffney]

An interesting article from today's Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Frank's Wild River

Behold the Taunton River in Fall River, Massachusetts, pictured nearby. Congressman Barney Frank thinks your family would love to visit this scenic wilderness. Among its attractions are the fuel-storage tanks along the eastern shore. The container ships and piers are always a hit with the children looking for a place to romp.

This could be America's next "wild and scenic river," if Mr. Frank gets his way. Last month the powerful Congressman pushed a bill through the House Natural Resources Committee that would give the Taunton River that designation under federal law. The bill could come up for a vote on the House floor soon. If you're beginning to sense that there may be more going on here than love of nature, keep reading.

The 40-year-old Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed to protect certain rivers from development. To qualify, says the law, a river should "possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values." If they are designated under the act, the rivers and their "immediate environment" are then protected from development or industrial uses. We've got nothing against container docks, but the Taunton River would not seem to qualify as wild, much less scenic, under any of the law's descriptive qualities.

Mr. Frank's real agenda can be spied on the right-hand shore in this picture. This is the proposed site of a terminal for importing liquefied natural gas (LNG). The terminal would be located right about where those five white storage tanks are at the top of the picture – hardly untrammeled wilderness. The Congressman, whose district includes part of Fall River and the Taunton River, has long opposed the LNG port.

Mr. Frank claims that the wild and scenic designation has nothing to do with the terminal. But six months before the terminal was first proposed in 2002, Mr. Frank had advocated dredging this not so pristine landscape to preserve its viability as an industrial port. Suddenly, he's discovered its wild, natural beauty. Mr. Frank has also blocked the demolition of the Brightman Street Bridge just downriver from the site, with the aim of blocking ship access to any LNG terminal.

With energy prices as high as they are, you'd think Mr. Frank and his Capitol Hill mates would have some sympathy for constituents who are squeezed at the pump, and on their heating and electrical bills. New England relies heavily on natural gas for both of the latter. Most of the LNG terminals for importing foreign natural gas are down in the Gulf of Mexico. So foreign or domestic natural gas for New England has to be piped all the way from the Gulf, adding to already high fuel costs.

Yet Mr. Frank is resisting this chance to bring more supply on line. Democrats seem to think they can avoid the blame for those rising costs, and it's true that supply is only one component of the current price equation; the devaluation of the dollar also plays a role. But when everything from drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf to exploration in the Rockies to the development of Alaska and the importation of LNG to New England are all ruled out of bounds, a policy agenda becomes clear.

That policy is hostility to greater supplies of carbon energy that would help keep prices lower. Mr. Frank's gambit reveals that policy in all its wild and scenic political grandeur.

Kinda reminds you of Ted Kennedy's behind-the-scenes actions to kill a windmill farm in Nantucket, doesn't it? Talk the talk is easy, right, Saunterelle? Tell us how you're doing on that CNG Honda, please.