Say Anything Blog

Given that the global demand for oil now is greater than the what Middle East can shovel out, imagine how much the demand will increase 10 years from now.  That’s how long it would take for us to see a drop of oil from any of the sites you mentioned above.  To be honest, we’re at the point where, instead of stealing profits from OPEC, we would be only helping the global supply keep up with global demand, which I’m not wholy opposed to.  The only real sustainable solution would be to develop alternative energy.  Here’s a glimer of hope: by 2010, a new car will be available for sale that runs on air:

http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/alternative_vehicles/hydrogen_cars/smart_minicat_air_car.html

And this is only the beginning of the aircar family, not to mention, hopefully, of a who new line of virtually non oil-burning cars.

Given that the global demand for oil now is greater than the what Middle East can shovel out…

Wrong.  The Saudis recently said that they could pump twice as much as they’re pumping now, and that’s just one producer.  False premise.
Simply removing the ethanol subsidies and mandates will drop the price at the pump about a dollar, so this situation is, once again(like in ‘74) cause by govt interference in the market.
I do recommend that you personally wait for the “air car”, though, along with the other nuts.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

You’re the same guy that called us nuts for thinking that Ethonal would work.  The wait for this new air car technology won’t be long, because it’s already being used in India and Europe, and they’re expected to be available to us in a few years.  Obviously it’s not the magic bullet, but neither is relying solely on the remaining oil deposits; it would only buy us time.  Renewable energy is the permenant long term solution.

You’re the same guy that called us nuts for thinking that Ethonal would work.

And I was right; the ethanol boondoggle has raised food prices, distorted markets, and is responsible for raising gas prices by about a dollar a gallon.
There is currently no renewable energy solution to our energy needs, so it’s not a “solution” to anything right now.  If we continue to grow our energy supplies, we might generate enough wealth to fund the creation of something in the future.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Obviously it’s not the magic bullet, but neither is relying solely on the remaining oil deposits; it would only buy us time.  Renewable energy is the permenant long term solution

What’s wrong with as you say ‘buying us time’?  Increasing our oil production would have an immediate effect on our dependance for foreign oil and what’s not to like about that.  Besides no one can say when your renewable energy ‘magic bullet’ what ever that is, will be available.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

You’re the same guy that called us nuts for thinking that Ethonal [sic] would work.

Chris,

It doesn’t work!  Mandated corn-derived ethanol has been a huge disaster, for both the transportation energy market and the food market as well.

That said, I’m curious what sort of “renewable energy” you see as the “permanent long term solution” to our transportation needs?  What such energy source do you envision carrying me to the Gulf coast for a week at the beach, or trainloads of American coal to a port to be shipped to a country not too politically correct to convert it into a clean burning liquid fuel to power their cars and trains?

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Again, domestic oil isn’t a solution either; it would only buy us some time.

you’re right about ethanol, but technically cars run on it.  Now, air wouldn’t have the same side effects because it’s not a food nor does it require a lot of petroleum to be transported.  The same would go for hygrogen and solar panel.  In a few years I expect the market to be opened up to these new technologies like you’ve never seen before, and then they’ll be the standard, especially considering the price of gas nowadays.

Wrong.  The Saudis recently said that they could pump twice as much as they’re pumping now, and that’s just one producer.
robert108 on June 9, 2008 at 06:07 pm

When did they say they could pump twice as much as they’re pumping now? Are you making things up, or are you mistaken.
You say they could but will they?

chris: circular reasoning from you; the price of gas today is due to both the ethanol boondoggle(about one dollar of it right now) and of our weakness in the oil market.  Some of the price is also due to the futures traders betting against us; your imaginary energy will probably exist some day, but it will take a lot of investment to produce it, and that investment will come from oil-generated prosperity.  No oil, no prosperity, no “alternative energy”.  Right now, the alternative to cars is either leg power or horse power.  As much as you might think it would be groovy, you wouldn’t really want to live in that world.
While cars now run on partial ethanol(with gasoline), it’s not cost-effective or even environmentally friendly.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

The 10 year lie thrown out one more once. Next chrissie will tell us that oil will run out in 20 years.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

ellinas,

Ask, nicely, and ye shall receive:

Saudi oil production capacity could grow from its current 11 million b/d to over 23 million b/d to meet world demand according to Saudi Aramco’s President and Chief Executive Officer Abdallah S. Jumah, confounding sceptics who believe that the Kingdom may be approaching, or even past, peak production.
In a speech delivered at Rice University in Houston Mr Jumah said that the Kingdom is uniquely positioned to step up and deliver, because of its reserves and resources, to consider raising its production by such a margin.

The company is currently expanding its production, processing and transport infrastructure to allow for a 12 million b/d capacity which includes a commitment to maintain 1.5 million to 2 million b/d of spare production capacity.

There is no doubt that the Saudis could double their daily production, but whether they choose to do so or not is another matter.  After all, its their oil.  They own the wells.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

There you go again, Bravo1, using people’s own words to prove what they said was what they said. You hate filled, bigoted, Hatee McHater you!

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

chris - You’re the same guy that called us nuts for thinking that Ethonal would work.

It’s certainly working as a government program. Beyond that, it’s not.

Again, domestic oil isn’t a solution either; it would only buy us some time.

Well no shit, Sherlock. Everything in life is only buying us more time until the next solution.

What can we do today to help our energy situation? You’re busy denying the solutions available today.

a lot of those domestic oil deposits aren’t available today and probably won’t be for 5 to 10 years, which is about the same timeframe that alternative energy could be available en masse, if you let it.

I think you guys have too little faith in technology, which is improving at an exponential rate.  Just a few years ago, wind power was a liberal, tree-hugging fantasy, and now you can see hundreds of square miles of it in California.  With the advent of supercomputers and nanotechnology, other methods like solar power effecient and cheep enough to be used in production environments are just around the corner:

http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/2007/07/09/nanotech-roscheisen-solar-pf-guru-in_jw_0709adviserqa_inl.html

Of course, unless you live in a cave, I shouldn’t have to tell you about all this.  Your conservative nature to resist to change isn’t very compatible with today’s advances.

Here’s a good two point plan for energy independence.

1. To meet our current demands, drill in America.

2. So that we our ready when oil runs out, direct 100 percent of taxpayer funded financial aid at Math, Science, and Engineering majors.

Let’s face it, the solution to our energy problems aren’t going to come from the minds of Political Science and Women’s Studies majors.

a lot of those domestic oil deposits aren’t available today and probably won’t be for 5 to 10 years, which is about the same timeframe that alternative energy could be available en masse, if you let it.

You liberals have been saying the same thing for more than 10 years now. There is no guarantee alternative fuels and the infrastructure necessary to make them affordable will exist in 5-10 years.  Fuel prices have doubled in the last year alone.  We cannot afford to “hope” for 5-10 more years that everything will fall into place.  While we pursue alternative energy we must protect our economy and that economy cannot flourish without affordable oil.  So get the hell out of the way.

chris - I think you guys have too little faith in technology…

Your insults belie the fact that you’re still talking about tomorrow.

What can we do today? This question is asked beyond the hoping for the as-yet-unseen technology that will pump out the BTU’s that this economy requires.

Your conservative nature to resist to change isn’t very compatible with today’s advances.

Who is resisting change and what are you talking about?

Good grief, chris. Drop the rhetoric.

There’s no “today” solution, not even if you started drilling for domestic oil.  Even then, how many cents do you think it would really shed off the current price in 5-10 years?

However, here are some alternative designs that are already out in production by major and small companies, or will be in a few years:

-The electric car:

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

http://www.zapworld.com/

-The hydrogen car:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322668,00.html

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/autos/0705/gallery.honda_fcx/index.html

-The air car:

http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=36

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html

No right minded person—or nation—would go out of its way to hamper the production of a relatively cheap source of energy that may or may not be damaging the climate to a small degree before it had new technology in hand that was equal or better in terms of cost and performance.  Yet, that is precisely what the Democrats and thier likeminded cohorts in Europe are proposing. 

Are they obtuse or corrupt—or a little of both?  It really doesn’t matter, they are willfully destroying this country’s economy.  A great argument for term limits.

Besides the subjects mentioned above, some say that we’ve reached the Hubert peak of oil production, and from here it only gets harder to get to and be more expensive:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

This along with ever-increasing demand is a crisis in the making.  We have to keep developing ways to use renewable resource that won’t get depleted.

Even then, how many cents do you think it would really shed off the current price in 5-10 years?

Speculation in oil futures is costing us 35-50 a gallon alone.  Supply coming online would send a strong signal to our suppliers to keep costs down or lose market share.  This alone would reduce costs immediately and substantially. 

You keep harping on that 5-10 year nonsense though.  It got us where we are today.  You libs and your absurd policies bear the majority of responsibility.

We have to keep developing ways to use renewable resource that won’t get depleted.

Nobody is denying this.  We just aren’t willing to tank the economy and subsequently R&D into alternative energy, in order to do it.

I told you it would toddle on into “oil is running out”.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

chris - There’s no “today” solution…

So we’re not allowed to drill and we’ll just go on hope for technologies that aren’t here today. The technologies will most likely be here tomorrow, but it was asked what on what we could do today.

Answer: no drilling, just sit and wait 5 to 10 years for some unforeseen new energy source.

We can’t heat our homes on hope, chris.

Even then, how many cents do you think it would really shed off the current price in 5-10 years?

It’s not about ensuring price. It’s about ensuring supply.

In any regard, we heard this argument from the Democrats back in 1995. They were then successfully opposing the drilling in ANWR (why it’s even Congresses business, nobody knows). It’s now 13 years later and you’re here using the 5 to 10 year yardstick.

It’s as if you have no rear view mirror. Your nature of resisting exploitation of known oil resources isn’t very compatible with today’s technological drilling advances. Right back at you. This time, it makes sense, Mr. Let’sJustSit&Hope

...some say that we’ve reached the Hubert peak of oil production, and from here it only gets harder to get to and be more expensive.

Chris,

There is other, less frantic opinion, that man has used up roughly one half of all discovered and proven reserves thus far.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

...some say that we’ve reached the Hubert peak of oil production, and from here it only gets harder to get to and be more expensive.

Are we going to change the entire direction of civilization on an agendized opinion?  That would be completely foolish.  We have plenty of oil, and it would be stupid not to use it to generate as much prosperity as possible.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

We may differ on climate change, but you can’t deny that it’s a poison that gets into our atmosphere and water.  The mere extraction of oil from shale and coal (retorting) emits nasty carcenogens and other stuff, and the problem is compounded when the stuff is location in places where the ecology is very fragile.

Well, it looks like we agree on the many problems involved with oil:
-Price and production is supseptible to geopolitical instability.
-The profits funnel to volatile countries and individuals.
-it’s non-renewable and running out.
-Wars are created to gain control over reserves.
-Envoronmental problems.

How much of these problems would continue if we were to use renewable energy?

Looking back, I see that chris is just another in a long line of lefties who deny reality,

They’ve [polar bears] been around for millions of years, but why is their population dwindling now?  Or do you not believe that either?

He continues…

They’re [polar bears] put in the endangered list becuse their population is on a down trend.

This one is a brick wall. No amount of reasoning and facts will break his reality proof bubble.

Not to mention the oilfields that have been considered played out that are now being reopened.

And with this,“We may differ on climate change, but you can’t deny that it’s a poison that gets into our atmosphere and water.  The mere extraction of oil from shale and coal (retorting) emits nasty carcenogens and other stuff, and the problem is compounded when the stuff is location in places where the ecology is very fragile.”, we come to his real agenda. People are destroying the world and no technology that does not meet with his approval is evil and must be abandoned.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Yep, Lik. No matter that there are more polar bears than at anytime since we have been keeping track of their numbers, these environazis continue to screech&wail.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

How much of these problems would continue if we were to use renewable energy?

It doesn’t exist, so it would be very foolish, indeed.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

And don’t even mention hydroelectric or nuclear!

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Just a few years ago, wind power was a liberal,
tree-hugging fantasy, and now you can see hundreds of square miles of it in California.

They’re only there because of subsidies.  They are not a practical source of power.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

According to this 2005 government report, wind energy accounted for 3 percent of the renewable energy which accounted for 7 percent of our total energy. If my math is right, wind energy accounted for .21 percent of our energy needs in 2005 and I can’t believe that those numbers have improved a lot over the years.  Less than 1 percent?  Yeah, that will get the job done…

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

They are not a practical source of power

indeed they are not!  If ever there was a taxpayer-funded boondoggle, it’s wind power.

One university energy engineer in my state has determined that providing sufficient wind-generated electricity to an average community of 100,000, would require 900 square miles of wind turbines.

“Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other vews.

William F. Buckley Jr.

Well, it looks like we agree on the many problems involved with oil:
-Price and production is supseptible to geopolitical instability.
-The profits funnel to volatile countries and individuals.
-it’s non-renewable and running out.
-Wars are created to gain control over reserves.
-Envoronmental problems.

Where did you get that idea?

Price and production are affected by liberal policy that has made us dependent on foreign oil.
The profits and where they go are not the concern.
It is not non-renewable and is not running out.
Wars are not created for oil alone. 
and,
The environmental challenges are managable given the technology you praise.

How much of these problems would continue if we were to use renewable energy?

How much of these problems would continue if we were to use renewable energy?

Like it has been said, a hypothetical will not solve this problem today.  Drilling and continuing to research and develop alternatives will ease the pain at the pump and get us where we need to be in the future.

Liberal reasoning at its finest:

“No…business leaders will invest when they think they can make a profit…not when they have spare money.”

-SAB’s very own, Rezistik

It took chris this long to finally draw out his trump card. 

nasty carcenogens and other stuff

Which nasty carcenogens?  The same as tobacco smoke and other substances smoked?  What other stuff?  Oxygen?  Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen? that make up air?
What would it cost to allow drilling in ANWAR?  Zero.  Just give the permission and the free market will take care of the rest.  At the very least, knowing that additional supplies are on the way would affect the futures market.

The Democrats are doing this, they have by their direct actions of voting against drilling for oil in our own country caused the price of gasoline to just about double since they took office two years ago.

Communism is evil

How much of these problems would continue if we were to use renewable energy?

Looking past the bad grammar, this is a very interesting question.
In fact, renewable energy still requires capitalization(maybe even more than oil), and so requires massive amounts of assets.  War is fought over assets, when you come right down to it, so that won’t change.  You still have to make cost/benefit decisions; wind farms tie up land and chop up birds, so there is always a cost involved.  Cropland can’t be used for housing or other purposes, so there will always be competition for resources.  Energy is really “energy conversion”, and there is no guarantee that one method of energy conversion will be any less polluting or damaging than any other. What does it take to make solar panels and windmills?  What raw materials and processing is required, and how “clean” is it?
I await your answers, chris.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I think we are seeing the consequences of the left’s dominance of academe here…

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Gents,

What would you venture to guess that AlGoreoids like the concept of raising the cost of fuel so much so that the Great Unwashed Masses can’t use much of it, if at all, thereby helping to save the Whales from Global Warming until a magical sustainable, renewable energy solution replaces fossil fuels?  Forget about the pain that happens between now and then. 

And by the way, there are too many of us anyhow, since ZPG only worked for North America, Europe and Japan, while the Third World keeps pumping babies out.  So if famine and other lack-of-energy caused die-offs occur, it’ll be better for Earth-Mother Gaia.

After all—it’s Earth that’s in the Balance.

...for great justice

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America’s self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.” —Ann Coulter, P. 16

http://i44.tinypic.com/t89p3s.jpg[/IMG]”]

AMERICANS FOR TRUTH

NO PRIDE. LV

MASS RESISTANCE

THE PINK SWASTIKA

MZ, this is a point that gets leftards screeching no end. As soon as it is brought up the wailing&gnashing of teeth commences. It has been the goal of environazis to reduce human industry and agriculture for nearly 100 years, the cry that there are too many people, consuming too much [insert item here] and causing harm to the “earth” in the process. And don’t you dare point out that humans are PART of the planetary ecology(the environment), they get all kinds of pissed off then!

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I think it’s time to re-frame the debate.

The environmentalists/greens seek to return nature to a pristine state.

We propose to improve the lot of humanity.  Let us refer to ourselves as Pro-Humanity, and our cause that of Humanity.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Well it looks like I’ve stirred up a bee hive here, getting attacked right and left.  I expected as much.  I’ll try to respond to most of them.

No matter that there are more polar bears than at anytime since we have been keeping track of their numbers

I guess you’re referring to the book “Cool It” by Bjorn Lumborg.  The polar bear population had indeed increased in the 70s due to the International Agreement on Polar Bears, which limited hunting and over harvesting.  Also, it appears that the population of polar bears had increased recently, but it’s mostly because they’re moving away from the melting ice and more inland to where there are more humans.  Here’s a good link that debunks the argument that polar bears in general are doing better today:

http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/10/will-polar-bears-go-extinct-by-2030-part-i/

It concludes: “Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.”

we come to his real agenda. People are destroying the world and no technology that does not meet with his approval is evil and must be abandoned.

Why would you need my approval?  It’s the same thing as replacing aerosol that destroys the ozone with a chemical that doesn’t (which we have done apparently without much fuss from you guys).  Wouldn’t you prefer a fuel that doesn’t poison the air we breath and the water we drink? 

(alternative energy) doesn’t exist, so it would be very foolish, indeed.

So you’re telling me that all the links I provided have been lying to us?  From Chevrolet who is selling electric cars to Fox News who reported on hydrogen fuel cells?  Interesting…

(wind power in California are) only there because of subsidies.  They are not a practical source of power.

Just remember we’re only at the beginning of an era of alternative energy, so these technologies will start as government programs and be available to companies in limited supply, just like with the birth modern Information Technologies like the Internet.  But the use and availability will increase at an exponential rate.  That’s the way it always works.

Price and production (of oil) are affected by liberal policy that has made us dependent on foreign oil.

Actually, alternative energy will stir us away from foreign oil, not towards it.

The (oil) profits and where they go are not the concern.

Actually, the oil profits going to terrorists and rogue countries has been the central concern since 2001, don’t you think?

It is not non-renewable and is not running out.

Oil is indeed non-renewable, and by the very definition it will run out.  IF YOU DON’T KNOW THAT BY NOW, THEN GO BACK TO SCHOOL.  I CAN’T ARGUE WITH IGNORANCE.

Which nasty carcenogens?  The same as tobacco smoke and other substances smoked?  What other stuff?  Oxygen?  Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen?

It contains hundreds of toxic chemicals like acids, metals, and oxides.  Here’s a good link on what exactly it contains:

http://www.energyindependencenow.org/pdf/fs/EIN-WhatToxicAirPollutants.pdf

Petrol-based smog has a direct link to human diseases.  The Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen alone can kill you in high doses; try locking yourself in a garage and keep the car engine running for a few hours.  Here’s a good link on heath and smog:

http://www.lungnet.com.au/content/view/92/146/

I’m not even going into the dangers of extracting oil from shale and coal right in our backyards. 

energy still requires capitalization(maybe even more than oil), and so requires massive amounts of assets.

This last comment is the best one yet.  There’s always a downside of everything, just like with Ethanol.  However, you have to honestly weigh good stuff with the bad.  It’s true that alternative technologies have their negative impact on the environment also and are in less abundance as compared to petroleum.  However, you wouldn’t downplay the potential of a child just because he can’t read yet, right?  The technology has room to grow and improve.  An electricity-generating windmill does take up space and can be dangerous to animals, but through technological improvements they’re destined to become more efficient and have built-in protections.  Plus the ecological effects of windmills should still be less than the toxins emitted from, say, extracting coal to oil.

Wow, what a pile of leftarded stupidity. Do you have all this crap written down on postits hanging around your cubicle? If you feel so strongly about eliminating the human race, then, by all means, show us the way. Take the razor and slice deep, 3 lines from base of hand to elbow. You’ll bleed out in under 8 minutes. THAT would show us how much you care about sacrificing for Gaea.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

And to address all your pie in the sky idiocy, it all requires massive amounts of ELECTRICITY. That means thousands of nuclear electric generation plants, thousands of hydroelectric generation plants, thousands of coalfired electric generation plants. Wind ain’t going to do it. Photo voltaic solar ain’t going to do it.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Wow, what a pile of leftarded stupidity. Do you have all this crap written down on postits hanging around your cubicle?

You sure show some intelligence with those comments.  What part of the hills are you from?  What grade are you in?

And to address all your pie in the sky idiocy, it all requires massive amounts of ELECTRICITY.

The windmills require only wind, as proven in California. The aircar requires a little more than air, as what’s being done in India and Europe.  Again, your ability to simplify a bunch of complicated technologies has intelligence written all over it.

Actually, the oil profits going to terrorists and rogue countries has been the central concern since 2001, don’t you think?

Actually, Carter started it by restricting domestic production, which is the source of the problem.  The oil profits and prosperity should be staying in this country.  It has been a concern since way before 2001.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Again, without MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY you can do none of the things you list. More nuclear, more hydro, more coal. Continue on with your fantasy of magical energy production, wind ain’t going to do it, photo voltaic solar ain’t going to do it.

Geothermal, on a massive scale, is a help. Natural gas fired plants are a step in the right direction.

All the other blahblah you keep linking is just that, blahblah.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Chris,

Wind accounts for 2.14% of California domestic power production, and for a mere 1.67% of power consumed by California (and California imports 21.96% of the electricity it consumes, all figures ca 2006).

A two percent solution is no solution at all.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Continue on with your fantasy of magical energy production, wind ain’t going to do it, photo voltaic solar ain’t going to do it. 

You’re like a guy in the 70s who would never have believed that we would have computers at the palm of our hands or video conferencing with people half-way around the world.  Too futuristic.  Access to any song ever sung and any book ever written in minutes? It’s a pipe dream.

The “ain’t going to do it” crowd usually end up on the wrong side.

You’re like a guy in the 70s who would never have believed that we would have computers at the palm of our hands or video conferencing with people
half-way around the world. Too futuristic. Access to any song ever sung and any book ever written in minutes? It’s a pipe dream.

Here’s where you screw up, chris: all those things you mention succeeded because they paid for themselves; they didn’t require massive govt subsidies like all your fantasyland “alternative energy” schemes do.  That’s the difference.  When your energy schemes can survive on a level playing field, get back to us.  Good example, but not for what you think it is.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

You are living in a fantasy world. Wind ain’t going to do it. Photo voltaic solar ain’t going to do it. Period.

And spare us the car that runs on water and the car that runs on air being stopped by big oil company plots crap. That is TV comedy script material.

Every single thing you keep listing requires massive amounts of electricity, to produce and to maintain. What? You actually think windmills lay eggs and baby windmills hatch from them?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Oh, and whilst we are on the subject, what are you going to replace petroleum with? Do a quick google search, “Products made from petroleum”, and give us a snappy answer. I do not believe you have any concept of how inextricably intertwined petroleum is in your day to day life.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

all those things you mention succeeded because they paid for themselves; they didn’t require massive govt subsidies like all your fantasyland “alternative energy” schemes do.

For one thing, state and national electric grids can’t be handled the same way as cell phones and Ipods.  I’m sure that the government has a big hand in subsidizing nuclear plants, for example.  Government intervention is a reality regardless if you’re talking about coal, nuclear, wind, etc.

If you’re talking about economics, then wind and solar may become cheeper than coal depending on the technological improvements.  Solar energy is already cheeper than coal with the new nanotechnology:

http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/

The Department of Energy says that wind is “is cost-competitive with fossil fuels”.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/new-doe-report.html

Oh, and whilst we are on the subject, what are you going to replace petroleum with?

We’re talking about energy right now, not plastics and other products.  But now that you bring it up, it would be nice if we could depend on oil only for those things, because 2/3 of all oil is used for transportation:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/demand_text.htm

However, when the oil runs out, we’d better hope that technology has something to replace it with.  Given the increasing technology, I’m sure we’ll use replacements lot sooner than that.

My Gawd! It actually thinks that DeptEnergy knows anything about economics.

Numbnuts, believing that oil is"running out” is so 1970s. What, are you getting all your info from NPR?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

If you’re talking about economics, then wind and solar may become cheeper than coal depending on the technological improvements. Solar energy is already cheeper than coal with the new nanotechnology

Wrong again; if any of that fantasy stuff was cost-effective, it would be on the market without any subsidies.

BTW, unless you’re talking about birdies, it’s cheaper.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

OK if you don’t believe the government, let’s do the private sector: Google is investing hundreds of millions in wind power:

http://earth2tech.com/2007/11/27/google-to-produce-clean-energy-cheaper-than-coal/

If they get their way, our Google searches will be powered by wind! lol

And the cluelessness expands. Google is going into wind energy investment as a tax write off.

Riddle me this, why are “environmentalists” the number one opponents of wind farms?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

And the cluelessness expands. Google is going into wind energy investment as a tax write off.

Well I don’t doubt it since corporations only see the bottom line, but thier contributions should help out the cause significantly.  Many companies will take advantage of the tax credits, and they will help develop get the ball rolling faster.

why are “environmentalists” the number one opponents of wind farms?

Wind turbines are, admittedly, appropriate in only certain locations.  Bad planning would make them destructive to the ecology.  However in some locations, the impact would be minimal. This is why they need to be used in conjunction with other technologies, depending on locations and conditions.  geothermal energy would be perfect in the “ring of fire” area while solar energy would be perfect in the desert.

Chris,

The wind farms at Sunol and Tehachapi have been in place (and growing) for nearly 30 years, and yet the 2006 figures I listed above (and which you firmly ignored) indicate that wind power is a trivial adjunct to electrical power generation in California.

You should also note that since such things have been tracked, there has not been a ten year period in which the proven reserves of recoverable oil have NOT increased.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

He (Chris) seems to have fallen silent…

I think we should dub him 2h;ris from here on out…

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

It is the same old tired crap that has been spewed by leftards for 3 decades, no change at all.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem