Al Gore called Thursday for a “man on the moon” effort to switch all of the nation’s electricity production to wind, solar and other carbon-free sources within 10 years, Associated Press reported. “When you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices,” Gore said. The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group Gore leads, put the 30-year cost of his plan - both government and private - at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion.
Also Thursday, utility officials in Texas gave preliminary approval to a $4.9 billion plan to build new transmission lines for wind-generated electricity, AP reported. Texas is already the national leader in wind-power generation and could soon leave Kansas and other windy states in the dust.
Meanwhile, the Americans for Prosperity group has a video of it pestering attendees at a recent Gore event about why they didn’t take public transportation, as Gore advocates. The video also notes how Gore and his family and associates came to the event in two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV.
213 Comments
Maybe the town cars were wind powered? Or…is it just possible that good ol Al is one of the “do as I say, not as I do” crowd?
Dear CON idiots–
When you fill up a big car with six or eight people, you get a higher fuel efficiency than when you put one person in a Honda Civic.
Try thinking for a change.
Thank you,
The Management
Texas is going whole-hog into wind and Kansas can’t get past whether we should pollute our air with more coal (Holcomb) and send the energy out of state.
Yup, that’s CON think . . .
Phil B: The way I read the early press releases, our electric power provider, Westar Energy Company is partnered somehow in developing the proposed electric transmission lines from Texas to western Kansas. As a side effect, the announcement might be causing the price of Westar’s stock to go down until the question is answered about how this expensive project is going to be paid for.
However, from the engineering point of view, I would like to see some reporting on this by the EAGLE’s crack news staff particularly showing a map of the proposed routes of these various proposed electric power transmission lines.
Looks like the GORACLE is jumping on the T. Boone Pickens money wagon so he can get some of that cold, hard cash to expand his mansion in Tennessee.
Climate crisis Brownlee? 0.8 degree temperature rise last century is a climate crisis?
Of course, if the Global Warmers are wrong and it turns out we are heading for global cooling, what happens when the plains of the U.S. to include Texas are thrown into sub-zero temperatures, that will freeze any productivity of wind turbines and cause break down of connectivity issues due to fragile plastics that cannot handle temperature extremes?
Nuclear power is a better solution for long term energy production.
“The Eagle’s crack news staff” . . . you mean the ones on crack?
If it doesn’t involve leaves in the street or potholes or abortion or the Conservative outrage d’ jour, it doesn’t get covered.
We will be using MORE coal 10 years from now, in the United States, than what we use now.
We will be using MORE oil 10 years from now, in the United States, than what we use now.
There is NO true substitute for carbon based fuels anytime in our future.
Wind is fine, to a point, but wind is very, very unpredictable. It is not possible, as a practicle matter, for wind to provide more than a fraction of our electricity. I have heard 10% as a reasonable goal, for total production of electricity from wind.
Those who argue against any limits on wind power claim that we can easily move electricity from areas with wind to areas without wind.
It sounds like lots of lawsuits to me, as a power company tries to figure out who “deserves” energy, on days when there is no wind.
There is no practical way to save or store electric energy. When that day comes, this issue can be re-visited.
“connectivity issues due to fragile plastics that cannot handle temperature extremes?”
Does someone pay you to think up this goofy sh!t?
Sorry, Capn “I HATE” America..but Gore is pretty consistent in his do as I say, not as I do mentality. Here is a followup on his famous house…from June of this year..
From the Tenessee Center for Policy Research:
Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations
NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.
After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.
Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.
“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.
Capn
I think we can find some pictures of Gore in an SUV with 2 or fewer people in the SUV.
Gore is a hypocrite.
“Do as I say, not as I do” Al Gore.
More CON-think from Franklin–”what about when the wind doesn’t blow?
Well, gee, that’s when the coal fired plants kick in. But think of all the pollution that isn’t generated when the wind is blowing.
10 years??
It wouldn’t make sense to start something that would take 10 years to achieve.
You can address the future of energy in America, or you can attack an American who is trying to do some good. Your choice says a lot about what you are made of.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted July 18, 2008 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
More CON-think from Franklin–”what about when the wind doesn’t blow?
Well, gee, that’s when the coal fired plants kick in. But think of all the pollution that isn’t generated when the wind is blowing.
———————————
I doubt any utility company is going to invest in funding a fully operating coal-fired plant and wind turbines. To have a half a billion dollar coal plant setting around just in case the wind turbine option fails (and it will) is bad investment, bad business and bad for any viable energy grid.
‘Gore decreases his energy usage so TCPR lies about it’
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/gore_decrease_his_energy_usage.php
“And that’s using the numbers from the TCPR. Gore’s spokeswoman Kalee Kreider says the real numbers are rather different:
In fact, over the past year the Gores’ utility bills have dropped 40 percent, thanks largely to the house’s spanking new geothermal heating and cooling system, which has reduced the Gores’ natural gas bill by 90 percent in the past year. …
Kreider pointed out that the renovations weren’t complete until November, so it’s a bit early to be attempting before-and-after comparisons. In addition, the Gores participate in the Nashville Electric Service’s Green Power Switch Program, which allows them to buy their electricity from renewable sources like wind power, solar power or methane gas from landfills (the house’s 33 solar panels only supply 4 percent of its power needs, per Kreider.) So any energy they burn won’t be burning them a bigger carbon footprint.”
Gore’s energy use went down last summer, despite a HEAT wave.
‘Gore makes Nashville home more ‘green’ ‘
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/gore.home.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
“Al Gore, who was criticized for high electric bills at his Tennessee mansion, has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation’s most environmentally friendly.
…
“Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don’t know how it could have been rated any higher,” said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.
…
It houses his offices and those of his wife, Tipper, as well as a commercial kitchen for formal events.
…
The Green Building Council’s certification program has four levels, with platinum being the highest followed by gold. Gore’s home was one of 14 to earn gold status and the only Tennessee home to earn any certification.”
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted July 18, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“Climate crisis Brownlee? 0.8 degree temperature rise last century is a climate crisis?”
————-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif
econ posted,
“It sounds like lots of lawsuits to me, as a power company tries to figure out who “deserves” energy, on days when there is no wind.”
————–
And who “deserves” energy, when a coal-fired plant is shut-down for a month or longer, for maintenance?
cosmos_originally
Posted July 18, 2008 at 11:06 am | Permalink
Global cooling(sic) update:
‘NOAA: Eighth Warmest June on Record for Globe‘
Makes you wonder. If Co2 levels are at their highest in the last 800,000 years, why isn’t the globe hotter than it has been over the last 800,000 years?
BTW, why did the NOAA lie about the temps when they new NASA would have the real temps?
A link to Gore’s speech:
https://pol.moveon.org/donate/gorechallenge.html?r=3945&id=13269-3981722-expWp2x
Even if Gore is wrong about gloabal warming, which I don’t think he is, what is the down side to paying the equivalent of $1.00 gallon of gas, to stop importing oil and giving our treasure to Arab nations who harbor terrorists who want to kill us, etc., etc., etc.???
Our current cooling trend. Care of NASA
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
#
SolDevVB
Posted July 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm | Permalink
cosmos_originally
Posted July 18, 2008 at 11:06 am | Permalink
Global cooling(sic) update:
‘NOAA: Eighth Warmest June on Record for Globe‘
Makes you wonder. If Co2 levels are at their highest in the last 800,000 years, why isn’t the globe hotter than it has been over the last 800,000 years?
BTW, why did the NOAA lie about the temps when they new NASA would have the real temps?
——————————–
It’s because James Hansen works at NOAA and is trying to preserve his scientific reputation by altering data through a mixture of ruses and deceptions.
James Hansen, more than anyone else, cheerleaded the scientific community into false assumptions of science. It was a cleverly disguised attempt using correlation and not empirical observation.
A lesson that every future scientist should be aware, that correlation does not substantiate raw empirical data, observation and testing.
not substantiate raw empirical data, observation and testing.
should read as
is not a substitute for doing raw empirical data, observation and testing.
Raptor the dims won’t get it but don’t ever think that GWing isn’t big business. Look what it did for Gore alone not to mention all of those ‘peer reviewed’ scientists working on grants.
—————
”
In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.”
———————–
And Cap a four door Civic will handle 5 people in comfort. Maybe not as much leg room as a Town Car but it would sure be better for Mr. GWing himself to drive one and fly commercial every now and then.
I have two cars. One is a town car that hardly gets out of the garage now and the other is a Prius. Hubby is 6′5″ and he has plenty of leg room. Those in the back seat are comfortable also. It carries 5 easily. I am sure many small cars boast this same comfort. You can do what you want to do or be like the left and excuse everything this idiot does.T Boone and he deserve each other.
StevenEDavis
Posted July 18, 2008 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
A link to Gore’s speech:
https://pol.moveon.org/donate/gorechallenge.html?r=3945&id=13269-3981722-expWp2x
Even if Gore is wrong about gloabal warming, which I don’t think he is, what is the down side to paying the equivalent of $1.00 gallon of gas, to stop importing oil and giving our treasure to Arab nations who harbor terrorists who want to kill us, etc., etc., etc.???
———————–
Steven as I told WS yesterday that is a good idea. Some families can’t afford it and food for the table at the same time so I think the libs who are for this should send a separate check to the government everytime they fill up. Lead by example. That is always the best way.
Me thinks cosmos is scouring RealClimate(sic).org for a good canned response…
‘Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ falsely accused scientists worldwide of FALSIFYING CO2 measurements since the 1800’s.
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted July 12, 2008 at 3:40 am
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/open-thread-710-2/#comment-382388
“The only thing that is happening at these sample stations that read nearly identical co2 levels is that they are calibrated as non-empirical samples.
In other words, they are submitted(sic) as bona fide samples the calibration gas, plus some imaginary weasel factors that the alarmist have dreamed up.
Instead of using actual data from actual sites where human lives, the alarmists have purified and indemnified virginal co2 levels literally out of thin air.”
———
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ is a liar.
“Some families can’t afford it and food for the table at the same time so I think the libs who are for this should send a separate check to the government everytime they fill up.”
And I think that you should STFU.
SolDevVB posted,
“Makes you wonder. If Co2 levels are at their highest in the last 800,000 years, why isn’t the globe hotter than it has been over the last 800,000 years?”
———-
SolDevVB, do you enjoy proving how clueless you are about climate science?
#
SolDevVB
Posted July 18, 2008 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
Me thinks cosmos is scouring RealClimate(sic).org for a good canned response…
———————–
Naw, cosmos went for the personal attack instead.
As cosmos gets backed more and more into his failed Alarmist corner, he will become more aggressive and lash out with greater intensity.
WSClark
Posted July 18, 2008 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
“Some families can’t afford it and food for the table at the same time so I think the libs who are for this should send a separate check to the government everytime they fill up.”
And I think that you should STFU.
——————
What is your problem?
Can’t answer a simple question?
Attack the link
Attack the person
Repeat as needed.
attack the link
Whoops, it is NASA. So we get…
SolDevVB, do you enjoy proving how clueless you are about climate science?
Nice answer. How many stations has NOAA lost since 1990? How accurate is their data? Seems to me NASA is still getting it right.
If CO2 drives climate, and CO2 is now higher than in the past 800,000 years, why aren’t we hotter than any point in the last 800,000 years?
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted,
“Naw, cosmos went for the personal attack instead.”
———–
Nothing personal about it — SolDevVB doesn’t understand the basics about climate, such as aerosols, and can’t read graphs.
And you, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’, made the ridiculous claim that there’s been a global conspiracy since the 1800’s to falsify CO2 measurements.
“I think the libs who are for this should send a separate check to the government everytime they fill up. Lead by example. That is always the best way.”
Grm,
But isn’t doing nothing and staying the course going to actually cost those poor people (whom I know you care about so much) more?
Hint for you grm: the answer would be “Yes.”
I don’t think I need to send the government money because when the tax breaks for those making over $250K is allowed to expire in 2010 - we will have much of the needed revenue.
“What is your problem?”
You whine about the lack of civility on the blog, then you make stupid statements like that.
Why don’t we carry it a bit further - of our projected National Debt of $10 trillion, 75% was generated under Republican presidents.
Why don’t you freakin’ REPUBLICANS send an extra check with your taxes to cover that? You know, cover YOUR Republican share.
And while you are at it, send an extra check to cover YOUR war in Iraq - I was against it from day one, so why should I pay for it?
The list goes on………..
“Lead by example.”
Great, when are you going to start sending extra checks to the Treasury?
Nothing personal about it — SolDevVB doesn’t understand the basics about climate, such as aerosols, and can’t read graphs.
Then why don’t you explain why the CO2 level is higher than the last 800,000 years and why we aren’t hotter than the last 800,000 years?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted July 18, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
Multi-nic’d ‘Regular’ posted,
“Naw, cosmos went for the personal attack instead.”
———–
Nothing personal about it — SolDevVB doesn’t understand the basics about climate, such as aerosols, and can’t read graphs.
And you, multi-nic’d ‘Regular’, made the ridiculous claim that there’s been a global conspiracy since the 1800’s to falsify CO2 measurements.
———————
No, just an accusation that current co2 readings are done in such a manner where the data collected is manipulated to match the alarmist theory of some sort of co2 viral effect.
It ain’t happening.
Here’s a slow ball for ya cosmo. Should be able to knock this one out of the park.
Reference the comments to the draft of the last IPCC report.
SolDevVB
Posted July 18, 2008 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
So it is the contributors to the IPCC report that are liars? Would those be the peer reviewed papers you were talking about?
So a paper is peer reviewed and added to the draft. Then it take some ‘Anyone who requests a copy” reviewer to find the lie? Geez, Who writes and reviews this garbage? How many other lies made it through?
Not to be cited. Ya got that right!!!
SolDevVB,
Aerosols cause cooling, that offsets the warming that would be caused by the CO2. And oceans cause a thermal “inertia” that delays the warming.
NASA removed some temperature stations from their set, to improve accuracy.
Graphs,
‘Pre-historic Climate Change’
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical02.jsp
‘Recent Events’
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp
So what is the evidence that there are more aerosols today than last year?
There is more arctic sea than last year.
icecap.us/images/uploads/NSIDC071708.JPG
We are cooler than last year
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
NASA removed some temperature stations from their set, to improve accuracy.
=================================
(cough, B.S., cough)
SolDevVB,
“So a paper is peer reviewed and added to the draft.”
————-
LOL!
Have you ever even LOOKED at the reports?
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
They do NOT simply “add” papers to the reports.
Why does your second graph stop at 2000? We have cooled since 1998. Your first graph shows that.
Whatever cosmos. The draft lied about the number of stations. Some “Whoever requests a copy” reviewer pointed out the lie. So where did the original lie come from in the first draft? Why was it not reviewed before entering the draft? Why did it take some “Whoever requests a copy” reviewer to catch the lie? How many other lies made it through?
Do you have evidence of greater aerosol presence since last year?
NASA removed some temperature stations from their set, to improve accuracy.
NOAA has lost thousands of stations.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
“Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.”
LOL… following my new policy.. I am sure you guys could be right and the scientific community is wrong about global warming. Maybe Al Gore is a mean old man.
But I will go ahead and take cleaner energy sources, anyway, please.
Thank you very much.
SolDevVB posted July 18, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“Whatever cosmos.”
——–
Yeah, whatever SolDevVB.
“Do you have evidence of greater aerosol presence since last year?”
I never said that.
cosmos_originally, keep talking about AGW, and do it slowly…slowly, yes that’s it. Nice…..DON’T LOOK AT ME!!
So about the lies in the draft cosmos. Never really answered that.
About this year being cooler than last? You brought up aerolols. Still didn’t answer that one either.
More CO2 than 800,000 years ago, but not hotter. Didn’t answer that.
How many thousands of stations has the NOAA lost? Didn’t answer that one either.
Why is there more sea ice than last year? Never even touched that one did you.
Attack the link
Attack the poster
Avoid the question
Which will it be this time cosmos?
See, I can’t figure out the down-side of moving away from an economy based on carbon fuel.
The only-est reason Henry Ford opted for a gasoline-powered Model T was that gasoline was cheap!
The people who object to alternative energy approaches are like their great-grandparents who yelled “Get a horse!” in 1908.
Gasoline is not cheap anymore.
Get used to it.
Times change. Conditions change. And there were just as many people objecting to the loss of leaded-gasoline back in th 70s who today are whining about shifting America’s energy economy away from fossil fuels.
For starters, ending taxpayer-financed subsidies of the most profitable corporate enterprise in the history of civilization seems like a beginning.
Do some research on DeBeers and the diamond industry. Did you know there’s no shortage of diamonds that justifies their cost? No. DeBeers keeps diamonds off the market, pumps up the advertising to generate a market, and sits on tons of diamonds while trickling out a relatively few stones to the market.
Big Oil is doing the same thing. There’s plenty of gasoline if you’re willing to pay the price. No more “Out of Gas” signs as in the 70s. No more blocks-long lines at filling stations.
If you have the bucks for a gallon of gasoline, you’ll do okay.
And Big Oil will do better.
If Congress repealed the tax-give-aways to Big Oil and offered that money for incentives to alternative energy technologies, what’s the downside? You can still fill the tank of your rusted-out 79′ Torino (the one with the “No Fat Chicks” bumper sticker), but the wiser of us will be able to harvest wind and solar and geothermal and wave and hydropower technologies and, in the process, reduce the carbon footprint of civilization.
Again.
What’s the down-side?
(Except, of course, you won’t be able to play your 8-track tapes anymore.)
Gore is an idiot. He’s turned into a parody of himself.
Hillarious to think of what he’s become, a shill for global warming in a period of global cooling.
Sad that so many people have no clue other than to believe his crap.
Scarey, really scarey to think this nitwit was one vote away from the presidency!
First off, no source of energy is free, either monetarily or environmentally. It all comes with a price to be paid.
Second, while wind power is a good thing, like any good thing it can be overdone. We have no idea yet what truly massive use of wind energy may do to the climate.
Our first priority is to treat energy for what it is- a precious and exhaustable resource and do all we can to conserve it. We also need to develop a diversity of sources, so no one resource will be exploited to the breaking point.
As for carbon emissions, we are still living in the Fire Age. Reducing carbon emissions is going to be tough to impossible while we are exponentially increasing our population and it’s need for energy and other resources. We’re in a race, whether we like it or not; we need to find some way of limiting and eventually reducing our numbers before nature does it for us. I promise you we’ll like our methods better than nature’s!
I think that the Al Gore haters, like that Tennessee Policy Institute - whose only policy seems be attacking a Nobel Prize winner and former Vice-President of the United States - are the ones who have become the parody of themselves.
It seems that they can’t even tell an increase from a decrease… but it doesn’t matter since they just have an axe to grind anyway.. and they have no end of loyal “copy and paste’ers …
I won’t even touch the ‘nitwit with the presidency’ remark… the joke is way too obvious……
Oh, and another thing, 10 years? We got anoter ten years?
Two and a half years ago the Goracle gave us only 10 years to act. Now we can reset the dooms day clock?
How many times are we going to allow this idiot to reset the clock? I want it to eventually run out so I can sleep again!
Hell, “HLP” –
Come clean.
The only basis for your hard-on against Climate Change activists is Al Gore has become a spokesman for green energy strategies and technologies.
If Al Gore came out and said something nice about herding dogs you’d invite “Boy” over to shoot all of yours.
Were Al Gore to tell the world he likes barbecued ribs, you’d become a vegan.
If it dawned on you that Al Gore is a heterosexual you’d hightail it down to the bus station and cruise for teenaged runaways. Practicing your Larry Craig “Wide Stance” in the men’s room.
MH - I would add that Swiftboat financier T Boone Pickens is also now a follower of the ‘Goracle’
/sarcasm off
Well, it seems the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has a Wichita connection.
It is funded by oil millionaires….
“TCPR president Jason “Drew” Johnson previously served as an “Institute for Humane Studies Koch Fellow.”
The Koch Family Foundations, in particular, have donated millions of dollars to the IHS.
Koch Industries, a company with a dismal environmental record … in January 2000, Koch Industries agreed to pay $30 million, “the largest civil fine ever imposed on a company under any federal environmental law to resolve claims related to more than 300 oil spills from its pipelines and oil facilities in six states.”
mediamatters.org/items/200703020001
The bad news, ten years before global warming is going to kill us all.
The good news, the Goracle can reset the clock in two years.
“Practicing your Larry Craig “Wide Stance” in the men’s room.”
I don’t think making fun of homos is helpful.
“fleettwood” retorts to
“Practicing your Larry Craig “Wide Stance” in the men’s room.”
With –
I don’t think making fun of homos is helpful.
I wasn’t “making fun of homos,” I was making fun of “HLP” and Larry Craig…
Oops.
Sorry.
Monkey
Your analogy does not hold up.
Henry Ford was not trying to make horses, or horse feed, more expensive.
Henry Ford did not ask for a “cap and trade” system, to tax horses, in order for Ford to receive a subsidy, to build cars.
Monkey
Name the “tax give aways” that you think Congress “gives” to the oil industry, would you please?
Then, please show us how much oil companies pay, every year, in state, local and federal taxes.
Then show us how much SUBSIDY your alternatives need, to stay in business.
typical hate filled diatribe from capn:
Dear CON idiots–
When you fill up a big car with six or eight people, you get a higher fuel efficiency than when you put one person in a Honda Civic.
Try thinking for a change.
Thank you,
The Management
Question…what proof do you have that there were 6 or 8 people in each of goracles large vehicles?? None..of course, but, when have the facts ever bothered you?
Let’s see, we have energy from biomass, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal motion, and landfill gas. Then there are the conservatives who think energy can only be provided from coal and oil. Conservatives are a bunch of defeatists who just want other nations to take the lead and perhaps America can follow along when it become a third world nation.
Thank goodness conservatives weren’t leading the war effort in WW2. They would have whined and wouldn’t have bothered to recycle a paperclip to help manufacture the weapons to defeat fascism. Just a bunch of lazy losers who are too intellectually weak to come up with new ideas and too physically lazy to lift a finger to do anything. As usual they’ll rely on the progressives to make the effort and they’ll try to take the credit when all the hard work is done.
Allow the coal plants but build them upwind and in sight of the finest country club golf courses in KC, Topeka and Wichita.
Well I will say this for Al Gore. If he keeps preaching the same mantra and finds enough gullible people to follow him and he always seems to do this - someday he might be right. Lets see we are on our 4th 10 years from nows…. at this rate I can expect to live through several more of these. As far as looking out for my grandchildren - well by the time Al quits predicting they will probably be looking out for me if I outlive Al.
“It sounds like lots of lawsuits to me, as a power company tries to figure out who “deserves” energy, on days when there is no wind.”
Another example of why conservatives are too intellectually weak to deal with the issues. Wind is reliable, and if, on the rare occasion that wind becomes extinct there is solar power and if the sun burns out then we don’t have anything to worry about. There is also air compression. Excess energy can be used to compress air which can turn turbines to generate electricity when the other methods are producing power.
As usual Paul, you are out of your league. Just stand aside and let the grown ups take over.
Oh brother…maggot..do you really believe this “liberals are all saints and everyone else is evil” garbage that you post? Puhleeeeze… gross generalizations are the haven of the lazy minded and rarely have enough truth to bother considering.
Maggot what libs just refuse to acknowledge is that conservatives have never advocated not developing new energy sources. We have said a solution 10 years away will not address our needs now. Our economy depends on fossil fuels. I know the libs find this objectionable but believe me this is what pays the taxes that the libs plan to utilize to spread socialized medicine if Obama is elected. It is what the libs plan to use for handouts for those ‘who can’t help themselves’.
Maggot
Who, on this Blog, or anywhere else, has told you NOT to explore energy alternatives?
Who has told you NOT to use alternative, promote alternatives or invest in alternatives?
NO ONE!
You TELL US that oil and coal are, somehow, “obsolete” yet YOUR energy preferences require huge government subsidies and are far more expensive that carbon based fuels.
By your logic, “Star Trek” should have made horses, cars, airplanes, ships and helicopters obsolete.
That “transporter” is great new technology. Why don’t we use that?
And, in WW2, HITLER did use “new technology” — Hitler made liquid fuel out of coal — something you greens do not want us to do!
“Oh brother…maggot..do you really believe this “liberals are all saints and everyone else is evil” garbage that you post? Puhleeeeze… gross generalizations are the haven of the lazy minded and rarely have enough truth to bother considering.”
Oh yes, we have advanced so far when the Republicans were controlling all branches of the government. When you come back with something conservatives actually have done other than make America more reliant on coal and oil, then wake me up.
Hey maggot…and how much has the price of gas gone DOWN since Pelosi and company took control of the House?
Your simple generalizations are not worthy efforts of a 5th grader. And you call yourself an adult?
Not all conservatives are the spawn of the devil, and not all liberals walk on water–I know that is a horrifying thought to you, but if you take off your hate filled blinders you might see some truth in that.
Maggot
Show us just ONE study, from anyone, that says that wind power can ever provide a majority of our electricity.
No such study exists.
You have insults but no facts.
You have insults, but no study.
You have insults but not even ONE expert who agrees with you.
NOBODY is saying that we should NOT do wind or solar or any other alternative. (Except, maybe, the crazy corn based ethanol idea, which Gore SUPPORTS!)
Monkey, if your ideas made any sense, we would be using them already, in a massive way.
We arent, precisely because alternatives are still way to expensive.
Research is fine.
You are free to run the “beta” version of any technology you can find.
Just do not PUNISH what already works:
CARBON!
“Franklin” comes up with –
Name the “tax give aways” that you think Congress “gives” to the oil industry, would you please?
In the interest of bandwidth, I’ll make this short.
Let’s start with accelerated depletion allowance provided to small oil producers (about $7.6 billion over ten years), preferential expensing for equipment used to refine liquid fuels ($830 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for natural-gas distribution pipelines ($560 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for expenditures on dry holes (with unclear budgetary implications), and the exemption from passive loss limitation for owners of working interests in oil and gas properties ($200 million over five years).
And let’s not forget Big Oil will receive between 63.2 and 390 billion dollars in subsidies from the US government.
Details here:
http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/clean-energy
Maggot when you can point to one democrat that has made one positive move toward energy independence in the last 30 years let me know!
“Show us just ONE study, from anyone, that says that wind power can ever provide a majority of our electricity.”
Sure Paul, it took me less than a minute to find one.
http://www.mtpc.org/offshore/final_09_20.pdf
“Maggot when you can point to one democrat that has made one positive move toward energy independence in the last 30 years let me know!”
The Democratic Congress in the first 100 days they took the majority in the House, Gov. Bill Richardson, Montana Gov. Schweitzer, etc.
Do you know what a “working interest” is, Monkey?
That simply means that you are “at risk” for loss greater than the amount invested, in most cases. In the case of oil drilling, this risk of loss is generally covered by insurance, as it is a very dangerous business.
Anyway, you have proven my point.
You consider 100% of the revenue from any business to be taxable, by what you have posted.
ALL of the “subsidies” that you list are deductions from REVENUES, very similar to what other businesses enjoy.
The difference, with oil, is not that hard to understand:
Boeing must “depreciate” a huge capital investment in equipment or a new building, over several years time. This makes sense, as Boeing will be in the SAME PLACE during that period of time. This makes sense because Boeing will not be drilling a “dry hole” and need to close down and move after such a failure.
In the oil exploration business, the accounting would be a mess if you had to list capital expenses on your books from wells that never produced.
Every penny deducted, in a “working interest” transaction, is “at risk” of COMPLETE LOSS to the investor.
However, if the well is successful, that investment cost and equipment write off remains the same amount, and the revenues are generated quicker than if all the capital of the company was tied up, due to tax depreciation schedules.
The oil industry generates HUGE amounts of tax revenue.
Anything you do to hurt the oil industry will result in a REDUCTION of tax revenues.
Oh brother… Raptor, do you really believe this “conservatives are all saints and everyone else is evil” garbage that you post? Puhleeeeze
I, personally, see nothing wrong with reducing our dependence on oil. Regardless of climate change, reducing CO2, and the rest of the polluting gasses can only help the air, water and land in this country. I’ve called for a Manhattan project on alternative, renewable energy sources for a long time.
It still strikes me as hypocritical the Republicans somehow fail to see where over 70% of our energy dollars are going, and what much of it is funding. With the war on terrorism going on, and our money paying for such things as Iranian missiles and IEDs, I would think they would be the first to endorse alternative energy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But I guess paying some country to blow up American service men and women means less that their pocketbooks. Somehow, I think their priorities are just a bit off.
Monkey
NOTHING in your wind energy link says that Wind can provide a majority of our electricity, any time soon.
Paul, are the oil companies producing enough tax revenue to cover the cost of the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands dead to get them those no-bid contracts in Iraq? Our entire military is one huge subsidy to provide security in oil regions so those companies can make a profit. Somehow I don’t think the oil companies provide the over $500 billion a year to pay for the military.
WS..you are proving what a moron you really are. I was posting about maggots comments about conservatives like the following:
“Just a bunch of lazy losers who are too intellectually weak to come up with new ideas and too physically lazy to lift a finger to do anything.”
Maybe you should learn to READ before spewing your garbage, ws….I never ever once claimed superiority/inferiority as maggot has been posting. Try reading my posts…or is that beyond your mental capacity?
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.philosophy.humanism/2007-11/msg00184.html
———————-
Maggot the above link gives some very good information on what we can expect on the wind front. It isn’t going to produce tomorrow what we need today.
As you can see the only Americans listed are that staunch demo family, the Kenndys. It would appear that they have ran out of hold cards because the Cape Cod project is going forward.
We are all in this together and a solution will be a joint effort.
JM
You are the hypocrite.
You say we should quit buying foreign oil, but you do not want us to produce domestic oil?
The best way to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources is to PRODUCE our own!
Drill here, drill now!
Paul, I’m assuming you are talking about my link. I’m surprised you read all 35 pages so quickly. So I doubt you read it, then again, you have proven you have poor reading comprehension. So let me to the hard work for you since you are a conservative, hence, mentally lazy.
The study said offshore wind power has the potential to produce 900,000 megawatts which is more than the output of all the power plants combined. Keep in mind that is measuring only the offshore wind. So if we throw onshore wind power then that increases the number greatly.
The top 20 states have the potential to generate 16,818 mw of electricity.
http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Top_20_States.pdf
Given that study was done in 1991 and the technological advances made since then then the number should be higher.
But it’s not like facts would ever deter you.
Oops, I listed the current output, the potential is 10,777 billion kwh.
It is an interesting study, maggot….but haven’t we seen people in Kansas object to wind generators because they are ‘unsightly’? Wouldn’t the same people block off shore wind generators? It is certainly worth the effort–especially here in Kansas with the unending wind…if we can build them.
Do you not understand, Mr. Rossell, that oil is placed on a global market? People who know much more about this than me say that the rising global demand for oil will absorb any that is produced in this country, thereby resulting a net-zero gain for us and the world with respect to increased supplies. And we pay a price when he drill here and what is the point if it makes no difference in terms of supply?
“over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.
These figures do not include local property taxes, state sales and severance taxes and on-shore royalty payments.
The answer to the second question, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is that the 1980s windfall profits tax depressed the domestic production and extraction industry and furthered our dependence on foreign sources of oil.”
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html
Add to the above, that oil company employees also paid income taxes and state and local taxes.
Steven
The Democrat Party puts the lie to your previous post.
Why do Dems want to “sue OPEC” to force higher production, if higher production will not lower price?
Why do Dems want to take oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if that will not reduce prices?
Tell me how the world market for oil knows the difference between oil that comes straight out of a well, and oil that comes out of the salt mines of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, would you please?
Also, if we do NOT produce our own oil, we are walking away from billions of dollars in tax revenue and thousands upon thousands of jobs.
Name one person in the “drill here drill now” camp that is against wind power, would you?
Wind power can not power my car.
Drill here, drill NOW!
One other thing, libs —
There are some oil well owners that do not WANT more drilling.
Why should they?
All the gold in Fort Knox would be worthless if we found a volcano that spurted out gold.
Why would the owner of producing wells want more oil drilling? Some do, those who will do drilling in other places. — Some don’t. Those that do not have very many good leases to explore, today, would prefer to get “top dollar” for the oil wells that the already have.
If I own a gold mine, do I want a large gold mine to be discovered, anywhere else on the globe, outside of my personal ownership?
The tendency for people to try and “corner the market” is natural. It is human. It is to be expected.
This is why competition and anti-trust law enforcement is important.
It is ironic: Those who profit MOST from the price of oil, today, profit from the greens who will not let us drill, today, for our needs, tomorrow!
“Why do Dems want to “sue OPEC” to force higher production, if higher production will not lower price?”
Actually it has to do more with OPEC being a cartel and engaging in price fixing in violation of WTO trade laws.
It’s nice that you brought up the subject of the oil leases because it was just the other day that you found it absolutely absurd that the oil companies were simply sitting on the leases. Now you admit it and agree with me that they are hoarding them in order to restrict supply and increase the price.
The thing about those leases is that they are on property that does not belong to the oil companies but are part of the commons. That’s why the Democrats are in favor of passing legislation that will, like the coal companies, force them to give up the leases if they refuse to use them. And, as you claim, they intend to simply acquire more leases to increase the stranglehold on the American people and bleed them dry with higher prices.
Thanks for making my case for me.
“Wind power can not power my car.”
No, it can recharge batteries in electric cars so in that sense it can power a car. With residential turbines and solar panels a person with an electric car would never again have to pay anyone to fuel up their car. That’s why many politicians, who have been paid off by the oil and coal companies, oppose measures to increase incentives for investing in alternative energy. It’s no surprise that in Kansas it’s the Republicans that constantly block net metering laws.
White House threatens to veto oil drilling legislation
The bill, which the House was to vote on later on Thursday, has a “use it or lose it” provision that requires oil companies to diligently develop their existing federal leases or turn them back to the government before they could obtain new acres to drill.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1733004620080717?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Why would Bush veto the ‘use it or lose it’ provision for oil leases?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080717162225AAupcxK
Thanks Linda, that pretty much proves that Bush is more for the oil companies than for increasing domestic supply.
Maggot
I did not “admit” that anyone was hording.
I said that COMPETITION stopped most producers from wanting to “hord” — since they would only leave the production profits for other competitors, if they did not participate.
The government MANDATES competition in the federal mineral leases through the BLM.
In that case, anyone who does NOT make use of the lease, productively, will not be subject to forfeiture of the lease, through what the courts have deemed an “implied covenant” to produce!
Ranchers and farmers who receive royalties, from their oil, might not want more drilling.
They will not profit from more production. They might benefit from reduced fuel prices but — it depends on production.
I am only making the point that T. Boone Pickens is a smart guy, but he has profited greatly from you greens.
Whoops
—-
“In that case, anyone who does NOT make use of the lease, productively, will not be subject to forfeiture of the lease, through what the courts have deemed an “implied covenant” to produce!”
—-
Meant to say that anyone who does NOT make productive use of the lease WILL be subject to forfeiture, under current law.
Paul, why do you put “hord” in quotes as if you were quoting me. I know how to spell hoard. The entire point of your post was to describe how companies would sit on wells waiting for the oil prices to increase. Do you know what the definition of hoard is?
Thanks for proving that you can’t even keep your own story straight. You flip-flop almost as much as McCain.
Linda
The law is stupid regulation.
Oil lease law ALREADY mandates production.
There is an “implied covenant” in any mineral lease:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1733004620080717?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true
There is no way to tell what stage, from testing and maping to permits and actual drilling plans, any of these leases are in.
It is silly to mandate something that is already been written into the lease contracts or demanded by the courts.
Linda
From a previous thread on the economy:
—-
Franklin
Posted July 16, 2008 at 8:00 pm | Permalink
There are “implied covenants” in ANY oil and gas lease or any mineral lease.
Even if NOT included in the lease contract, the courts have held than ANY lease holder has the right to terminated a lease for lack of production, after a period of time:
http://www.mosburgoil-gas.com/html/mosburg_primer_ogl4_11_96_2a.html
“What Are These “Implied Covenants”? The covenants that are generally implied in the modern Oil & Gas Lease — again, absent an express provision in the lease nullifying such an implied covenant or otherwise expressly covering its subject matter — are as follows:
The Implied Covenant to Protect Against Drainage (the Implied Covenant to Offset)
The Implied Covenant to Further Develop
The Implied Covenant to Market
The Implied Covenant of Prudent Operations.
Each of these covenants imposes an obligation on the Lessee to act as a reasonable prudent operator in each of these areas. This imposes a three-fold obligation: to act in good faith, to act competently, and to take into account (though not as a “fiduciary”) the legitimate interests of the lessor.
Under this standard:
The Lessee is required to offset a well which is draining the leased premises if a prudent operator would drill an offset (i.e., if it appears that the offset would likely be profitable). 3
The Lessee is required to drill additional locations and to drill to other formations if a prudent operator would take that action . 4
The Lessee must make reasonable efforts to market the production. 5
The Lessee must conduct operations in a diligent and proper manner . 6
Remedies for Breach.Damages are nearly always available for breach of the Implied Covenants, with the measure being the amount of royalties that the Lessor would have received if it were not for the improper conduct.7 However, in most states, cancellation of the lease will also be allowed as an alternative remedy.
When cancellation is being sought, the Lessor must give the Lessee notice, and an opportunity to correct. If the court orders cancellation of the lease, the order will usually be in the form of an alternative decree, under which the Lessee will be given an opportunity to correct the breach.
—–
This is true even if NOT stated in the contract.
The BLM or Federal Bureau of Land Management is in charge of virtually all mineral leases, on federal land.
BLM contracts generally contain a production clause and a forfeiture clause, in writing.
Even if they don’t — the courts have held that the oil company MUST produce, or forfeit the lease.
BLM has the same right, today, under the law, as any farmer or rancher to terminated a lease for lack of production, no further Act of Congress is necessary.
Now if a state is already permitted to reclaim leases not used by the oil companies then why did Exxon sue the state of Alaska when the state sought to reclaim leases that weren’t used for 31 years?
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1402840
If there’s such a law then Exxon wouldn’t have any standing. Perhaps you could settle the matter by pointing out the law which enables the government to reclaim unused oil leases?
Maggot
I am not flipping or flopping.
I am telling you that competition is promoted by our current system of granting leases.
I am telling you that any company that tries to “hoard” oil, by not producing a lease, can risk the forfeiture of that lease.
I am telling you that a FEW players, in the business, might not be in a big hurry to drill more wells, if they have NO good prospects.
NOBODY wants to drill a “dry hole” —
Opening up more land for oil and mineral leasing will promote more production.
There are forces at work which PREVENT hoarding.
Competition is the most important force.
Opening up more land for mineral leases is an important way to promote such competition.
Our anti-trust laws prevent price fixing, another important way to avoid hoarding or price fixing.
#
Franklin
Posted July 18, 2008 at 5:39 pm | Permalink
JM
You are the hypocrite.
You say we should quit buying foreign oil, but you do not want us to produce domestic oil?
The best way to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources is to PRODUCE our own!
Drill here, drill now!
==================================================
Geez . . . again you have no idea what you’re talking about. Please show me where I stated we should not be drilling for oil. I simply said we should have a Manhattan project on alternative renewable energy sources. I am fully aware we need oil, at least until we can find a better alternative, if one exists. But it seems you pantywaists like getting them in a bunch trying everything you can to keep that from happening.
And you have the gall to call me a hypocrite? And you have NO answer for buying foreign oil and killing our troops, then to call everyone who disagrees with “your don’t change a thing” attitude hypocrites? Hell, even if we drilled every freakin oil deposit under this country, it wouldn’t help for at least ten years. And in those ten years, we just MIGHT come up with something better. But not in your book we wouldn’t. You are indeed one of the dumbest people I’ve every had the displeasure of reading.
Maggot
Exxons argument was that they DID work the lease.
That would prevent forfeiture of the lease.
Also, you need to study the mineral lease concept of “implied covenants” posted above.
Good point Paul, I guess the oil companies only had 31 years, certainly not enough time to drill a well. So if it takes over 30 years to drill a well how is giving more leases supposed to help with the oil problem any time soon?
JM
Where do you get your “10 year” projection?
I know the media and the libs in Congress keep telling us that it will take that long.
It won’t.
Also, I have no problem with alternatives.
If you are not in the crowd that wants to punish oil and coal, while we develop alternatives, I do apologize.
However, you seemed, for a moment, to be leaning in the direction of punishing carbon based fuel.
The 10 year figure comes from proponents of drilling in ANWR.
http://www.anwr.org/Latest-News/Drill-here.-Drill-now.-Drill-ANWR.php
Maggot, this is from YOUR Link:
“But a Superior Court judge in December ordered state officials to weigh other options before stripping the leases. Two months later, Exxon submitted its 23rd development plan.
The proposal involved a $1.2 billion gas recycling and condensate production project to be developed over six years. The company said it had already secured a drilling rig and planned to begin development this year.”
—-
So, the government rejects 22 previous development plans, and then claims that there is a “lack of production”??
Also, please study the pipeline issue.
This new Alaskan pipeline is the sticking point.
Without a new pipeline, there is no reason to produce anything. There is no way to move the natural gas to market!
Maggot
Again, from YOUR link:
“Drilling in ANWR would get new oil flowing in 5-10 years, depending on how many lawsuits environmentalists file. That’s far faster than benefits would flow from supposed alternatives”
—-
5 to 10 years is NOT “10 years”
5 to 10 years. Did you notice the number 10? Silly boy, you’ve filled my tolerance for stupidity this evening, I’ll let someone else play with you.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted July 18, 2008 at 6:49 pm | Permalink
Good point Paul, I guess the oil companies only had 31 years, certainly not enough time to drill a well. So if it takes over 30 years to drill a well how is giving more leases supposed to help with the oil problem any time soon?
———————————-
It’s not the time, it’s productivity of certain federal leases. Some leases are worth hauling a drilling rig out to, to conduct the work.
However, there are other uses that a drilling oil company might want to keep federal lease land.
The other reason is that the ever litigious Environmental groups start waving law suit threats around and since it’s federal land, one 7 legged mosquito constitutes the endangered species act and the lease becomes useless.
“Maybe you should learn to READ before spewing your garbage, ws”
Tsk, tsk, Mr. Raptor.
OBVIOUSLY, my paraphrase of your comment was directed at the conservative element that dismisses all liberals, and was not directed specifically at you. Further, it was OBVIOUSLY tongue-in-cheek.
I didn’t realize that you were so sensitive - in the future, I will refrain from responding to or addressing any of your comments.
Damn, have a nice day.
From Wikipedia, re Franklin’s ignorant point:
Wind energy is plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, clean, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions when it displaces fossil-fuel-derived electricity. The intermittency of wind seldom creates problems when using wind power to supply a low proportion of total demand, but it presents extra costs when wind is to be used for a large fraction of demand. However these costs even for quite large percentage penetrations are considered to be modest.[3]
And answering Regular’s uninformed objection–
Wind power advocates argue that these periods of low wind can be dealt with by simply re starting existing power stations that have been held in readiness. The cost of keeping a power station idle is in fact quite low, since the main cost of running a power station is the fuel.
. . .
A study commissioned by the state of Minnesota considered penetration [of wind power in the energy grid] of up to 25%, and concluded that integration issues would be manageable and have incremental costs of less than one-half cent ($0.0045) per kWh.[29]
Study in Great Britain on Wind Power.
he most obvious concern just now is how the plan will be carried out. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard points out in The Daily Telegraph, there are only three major manufacturers in the world able to make the large turbines needed offshore – and one of them, German engineering giant Siemens, has already sold out until 2012. On top of that, the world has only one ship able to place these 200-ton turbines.
But even if we solve the logistical problems, we will still need to build at least 20 new conventional power stations to back up the grid when the wind isn’t blowing. While the wind farms will be spread over a greater land mass in Britain than in Denmark, increasing the chance that the wind will always be blowing in one area or another, the system will still be unreliable.
A Renewable Energy Foundation study of wind speeds in 2005 found that they varied so much that the back-up demand on conventional plants would have varied from 5.5GW to 56 GW in a single month. That would mean switching a 1,000 MW coal plant on and off 23 times to make up for the shortfall.
The introduction of a national computerised system (or ‘intelligent’ grid) to manage the power load could improve reliability. But the best hope for Britain may be to eventually hook our grid up to Europe’s network, enabling excess wind in one country to compensate for slumps in another. Until then, Brown’s lofty ambitions may remain a pipe dream.
Is wind power as green as it seems?
Demark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.
In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.
Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is “expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green”, says Lodge.
Wow.
Thanks for that report from MoneyWeek, Regular.
If man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings . . .
The ten years have nothing to do with politics. More oil production means more refineries, the distribution system to get the oil from the wells to the refineries. The distribution system to get the refined products into the system. There have been NO refineries built for twenty five years.
Remember when the refinery in Parsons was shut down because of flooding? We don’t have the capacity to process new oil.
Those, in themselves require a long list of hoops to jump through, Why? because of past practice where environmental damage quite literally ruined the environment. That, and right-of-way purchases. That will take five to seven years, if not longer, to get approved. Then the building can start. Think one or more refineries can be built in less than two to three years? Pipelines laid? Ten years total, easy. That ain’t politics: that’s facts.
ws, you are incredible. Your post said:
” Raptor, do you really believe this “conservatives are all saints and everyone else is evil” garbage that you post? Puhleeeeze”
And now you claim it was not directed at me? Your pathetic attempt at ’spin’ is transparent and pathetic.
“Your pathetic attempt at ’spin’ is transparent and pathetic.”
Let’s try this, Mr. Raptor. Please accept my sincerest apology for the misunderstanding - my comment was meant to be HUMOROUS and was not directed specifically at you.
With that, it is obvious that for whatever reason, I get under your skin, so, in the future, I shall refrain from addressing you in any manner.
As I said, have a nice day.
JMWalker
I think you meant Coffeyville instead of Parsons.
BTW Raptor,
Welcome back.
I hope you know it wasn’t I that made that horrible statement about you, when the Libs fled the blog to join their “Fister” group.
Just glancing at the statements from the Libs here on the blog, you can clearly see all they want to do on this blog is attack other posters and make incredibly stupid, ad hominem remarks.
Say, McCluer, when was that meeting with the Editors of the Eagle - you know- when you were going to whine about all the “personal” attacks on you?
It seems more than a week has gone by, what up?
Don’t the Editors want to come to your rescue and save you from all the evil “libs?”
……the “attack master” is beyond a shadow of a doubt little jimmy mccluer.
Leach off the government today troll-boy?
Apophis: Please call me sometime or leave your number with R.J. Dickens at Channel 5 TV on Douglas Avenue across from East High School. JWink
…in regard to what JWink?
Thanks, Reg. Dunno who it was…obviously some chicken who hides behind anonynimity.
thank you also, ws…a bit of rough and tumble is amusing, up to a point.
Long day…time to check the eyelids for pinholes.
One reason for vetoing? the use it or lose it proposal is it is probably not Constitutional. Leases are just that leases: they have a stated time period. If not, they are grants.