June 30, 2008

Yup
— Ace

A point that's so obvious that the MSM can't seem to comprehend it:

As dumb as this claim is, and it is stupid on it's face, the one that continues to bug the shit out of me is when the Dems keep whinning that any additional drilling offshore or in ANWR wouldn't yield any oil for a number of years. Instead, they want to invest in unproven technologies such as electric cars and solar and wind which will cost significantly more, require a massive overhaul of supporting infrastructure and...wait for it...won't yield any results for even more years if ever. Yet, nobody points out this obvious yet inconvenient truth.

This whole thing is a blatant excuse to rework our economy to favor more enlightened and ecology happy energy sources to support the myth of man made global warm..er climate change.

That's from Jack Straw.

I personally have trouble making that point because it's so goddamned obvious I feel like I'm condescending even to mention it.

However, the MSM has no such excuse -- they conduct interviews with these people day-in, day-out, and certainly it would be newsworthy to have a Democrat explain why we shouldn't explore for oil, which might take five years to show any benefit, but we should put al our eggs in the "new technology" basket, which will take ten years to show any benefit. If ever.

Posted by: Ace at 10:23 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 232 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "We can't alternative-energy our way out of this problem."

Whew... been needing to say that for weeks. Feel better now.


Posted by: redherkey at June 30, 2008 10:36 AM (kjqFg)

2 There's an interesting analog to the liberal argument: Taking the left's approach to the energy crisis, we cannot treat our way out of HIV/AIDS.

- immediately cease all efforts to slow AIDS progression. We know with certainty that all current treatments will eventually fail. We cannot treat our way out of this problem.

- focus all energy on alternative cures. There has to be one out there, and time and money wasted treating current patients is just taken away from finding a cure. Life is a finite pie; a zero sum game.

- the pain felt by focusing on the cure is what we get for not taking the right approach and trying hard enough before. It's a shame to let people die, but we have to think finding a cure for future generations.


Posted by: redherkey at June 30, 2008 10:43 AM (kjqFg)

3

The government and its minions should use no oil until the new alternative is onstream.  I'll allow an exception for the military.  Let the congress fry, freeze, and walk so they understand the full impact of their pandering gestures. 

Let them lead from the front. 

It would take about a month to have oil flowing from ANWR.

Posted by: MarkD at June 30, 2008 10:55 AM (MMy4A)

4 Really? electric cars, solar and wind are "unproven" technologies. you might want to tell Denmark that 20% of their power generation comes from an unproven technology. Speaking of unproven technologies - what is your feeling about recovery of oil from sands and shales

Posted by: cam2000deluxe at June 30, 2008 11:01 AM (cROVz)

5 As pointed out on Right Wing News by Van Helsing, the AP does know that it won't take 10 years to get oil from the ground to the market place when it's done overseas. Maybe they're aware that the unions and environmentalists won't bog things down over in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 30, 2008 11:10 AM (0+Ggj)

6 cam2000deluxe... walking and running as transportation and heating with dried cow manure are as equally proven as electric cars, solar and wind.

The problem being faced is one of utility and scale, neither of which solar and wind provide for. I'm intrigued that the entire role of oil in petrochemical, fertilizer, plastics, etc. is being ignored in the discussion. Granted, oil is very useful as a vehicle fuel, but to limit the discussion at that and discuss ready substitutes for only that role misses much of the discussion.

Posted by: redherkey at June 30, 2008 11:19 AM (kjqFg)

7

I'm all for developing new sources of energy.  In tandem with drilling more oil.  Only half of each barrel goes to fuel production.  The rest, which I never see anyone complaining about, is used to make all manner of necessary stuff.  We can't make plastics out of wind or sun.  And I think the environmentalists' first reaction would be, well, great!!  Let's not make any more plastics!!!  Plastic sucks!  But let the world go a day without medical equipment, eyeglasses, bicycle tires, coffee makers, PETA-approved shoes (that's right--petroleum products!!), rope, I could go on, but you get the idea, and see what kind of mayhem ensues.

**Oh, OK, just saw that redherkey has been thinking about this part of the problem, too...

Plastics and synthetic materials can be made with other raw materials, but those all have their own issues--diversion of corn and soybeans from the food chain, felling of more forests, etc.  It's disingenuous to just pretend we don't need the things that we get from petroleum, and I don't think the people who claim that $10 for a gallon of gas would be good are even thinking of everything else it affects.

 

 

Posted by: April at June 30, 2008 11:45 AM (pFlBa)

8 Solar, wind, etc. are proven: proven to be woefully inadequate as anything more than more feelgooder-ism for the scientifically-challenged manbearpig-olytes and their assorted, factually-challenged, hanger-ons.

Posted by: ECM at June 30, 2008 12:24 PM (q3V+C)

9 This whole thing is a blatant excuse to rework our economy to favor more enlightened and ecology happy energy sources to support the myth of man made global warm..er climate change.

Hey, haven't your heard?  It's the Democrats turn to rip off the American economy to benefit their pals.

Posted by: capitano at June 30, 2008 12:26 PM (+NO33)

10 Anybody know how John Tierney (D-MA) stands on the drill here, drill now, pay less movement?  I'm trying to dig out information but still don't know.  He's the rep for my district.

Posted by: redinbluestate at June 30, 2008 12:28 PM (RVQzd)

11

Denmark is a foreign country. It works there. But they're surrounded by ocean on three sides for the wind, and they're the size of what, Connecticut?

The technology doesn't scale well.

 

Posted by: SGT Dan at June 30, 2008 01:13 PM (YzCiM)

12

There is nothing stopping the new technology from hitting the market. last time I check we still have a quisi-free market system in America  The leftist never met a progressive idea that did not require govt money to fund.  That's why PBS still gets money from the government; it can not make it on it's own.  Same with lousy art work. 

Develop your own new energy source and put the oil companies out of business.  Until then quit having me fund your socialist ways

Posted by: airandee at June 30, 2008 01:31 PM (umqmu)

13 Re 6 and 7: Half? more like 3-4% of each barrel goes to plastics production as raw materials. So its part of the story, but only a small part. We face the same questions of scale with oil refining capacity and infrastructure. Has it been "proven" that refining capacity can scale up to meet future demand? How much does that cost compared to development of new tech? Is it better to spend money on adding 2% to world reserves by lifting the moratorium, or invest in longer term solutions?


Posted by: cam2000deluxe at June 30, 2008 01:32 PM (cROVz)

14 The MSM has already accepted as fact the suppositions that we are running out of oil, that no drilling can possibly have an effect on supply, and that the unproven technologies of hydrogen, solar, wind blah, blah blah will save us. This is perhaps the best example of their bias. I can understand political bias, because we all run into it every day. But when the bias is against rational thought, the scientific method, and capitalism I begin to wonder.

Posted by: iamnotachef at June 30, 2008 02:35 PM (nwJit)

15

I personally have trouble making that point because it's so goddamned obvious I feel like I'm condescending even to mention it.

It is condescendingly obvious, except maybe to that moron you.  Hey, you, how does it feel to be so stupid Ace has to write posts with the sole purpose of making sure you don't fall behind the rest of the class?

God, I love this new comment feature.

Posted by: Rocketeer at June 30, 2008 02:36 PM (GFaLW)

16 You fucking flat earthers can all go to hell.
I invented Global Warming and you can bet your sweet ass I'm getting paid this time. Do you think I made 109 million friggin dollars in the last 8 years? Hell no. Do you know how much damn money I've wasted already putting shit in my house and it don't save squat?
I have everything I got sunk into green stocks so fuck you.

Posted by: Al Gore at June 30, 2008 02:36 PM (Q1lie)

17
As long as they're working on the flying hydrogen fuel cell car, I'm cool.

Posted by: FreakyBoy at June 30, 2008 02:37 PM (4s1it)

18

Bite me, Rocketeer!  I'm speshul and this just proves it.

Remember that, the rest of you homos who keep writing about my squeakhole.  If I ever get my hands on you, I will trash you, thusly!

Posted by: JackStraw at June 30, 2008 02:39 PM (VBon8)

19 I, for one, welcome our new ecologically friendly overlords.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 30, 2008 02:41 PM (5aa4z)

20

Bite me, Rocketeer! 

You sound so...hopeful when you write that.

Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Rocketeer at June 30, 2008 02:44 PM (GFaLW)

21 All they want to do is destroy our economy, all this global warming BS is just cover for those commies.

Posted by: mbruce at June 30, 2008 02:45 PM (h/5U0)

22 ...Ace has to write posts with the sole purpose of making sure you don't fall behind the rest of the class?

First;
I appreciate everything Ace has ever done for me.

Second;
I didn't know it was possible to be condescending to Morons.

Posted by: A. Weasel at June 30, 2008 02:46 PM (bqcfE)

23

Jack, did you not get the memo about the new comment feature?

tmi3rd

Posted by: tmi3rd at June 30, 2008 02:47 PM (WG2sq)

24 Ha, Morons think alike (me & JackStraw) I guess.  I made that point on HotAir the other day.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/26/video-palinmania/comment-page-2/#comment-1207864

I can see where it seems so obvious you'd have to assume everyone knows it, but when the Left's politicians are acting as though nobody knows it (by making the assumptions/proposals they make) then even the obvious can seem worth a mention.

Mine was wonder what Schwarzenegger has done to prepare California for his imminent proposed changeover to all electric cars.

And, since we're stating the obvious, the answer is "not a damned thing".

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-power29apr29,1,585177.story

Apr 28, 2008: The risk of electricity blackouts in Southern California during the hottest days this summer is more than triple that of previous years because power plant additions have failed to keep up with demand, the state's grid manager said.

I wonder what the state's grid manager says about refueling every car in California with the existing grid and supply... although I'd rather not be too close when someone asks and his head explodes.

Posted by: Gekkobear at June 30, 2008 02:48 PM (X0NX1)

25

tmi3rd,

Shhhh.  Let's enjoy the fun as long as we can.  If we play it right, I'm betting we can get Jack and A. Weasel to call each other names and cry like little girls before this is all over.

Posted by: Rocketeer at June 30, 2008 02:49 PM (GFaLW)

26 I missed the memo as well, I actually went out and had a life this weekend.

Posted by: A. Weasel at June 30, 2008 02:50 PM (bqcfE)

27

Jack, did you not get the memo about the new comment feature?

Yes, it was my attempt at sarcasm.  Which should be ample explanation of why I don't have a blog.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 30, 2008 02:50 PM (VBon8)

28 I covered this too last week in my blog.  Coming up with new infrastructure for alternative fuel cars will require the same, if not MORE time and MORE money to develop to a point where every american has access to it.

Yes, it seems quite obvious, and it really is, but the MSM and most liberals have a hard time seeing reality as it is, rather than what they want it to be.

Posted by: conservativeinthecity at June 30, 2008 02:51 PM (vqbP7)

29 #2, Love it! 

Can someone please explain this new comment feature?  I am one of the stupid ones.

Posted by: ParisParamus at June 30, 2008 02:52 PM (SsMOW)

30 Type [ you ] without the spaces...

Posted by: Rocketeer at June 30, 2008 02:55 PM (GFaLW)

31 ...cry like little girls before this is all over.

To fucking late, I been weeping like a baby since I read the first comment this morning.

Posted by: A. Weasel at June 30, 2008 02:57 PM (bqcfE)

32 Oh and I also canceled Ace's donation check.

Posted by: A. Weasel at June 30, 2008 02:58 PM (bqcfE)

33

I expect this will bring a torrent of scorn, but...

Is it a bad idea to try to limit oil consumption for reasons besides the global warming/cooling/climate change/manbearpig reasons?

I mean, I don't think it necessarily bad that we try to stop depending on an energy source that people that hate us are sitting on a bunch of.  Would nukes + electric cars be a bad thing?  Not saying 'no oil', just 'our oil - no imports'.

That said, I would hate to give that victory to the religious zealots of the Church of Global Warming and Environmentalism. It would be kind of like the smoking ban in bars: I don't like how it got there, but I have to admit, it's nice not having your clothes reek of smoke after boozing it up.  Plenty of reek from other sources. 

As a believer in free markets, am I convinced that the barriers to entry in the auto mkt, the energy market and the oil business are as low as they could be?

Is there a free market solution to this or would it have to be part of a nationwide energy policy?  Seriously.  I'm looking to gain some understanding.

Posted by: ronnie dobbs at June 30, 2008 03:00 PM (hmHqH)

34

Jack, I actually got that you were being sarcastic.  Does that make me a little retarded?

P.S.  I have never written about your squeakhole, ever.

Posted by: Rocketeer at June 30, 2008 03:01 PM (GFaLW)

35 Dems and Satanic Cult

Classic, via Michelle Malkin, from Confederate Yankee.

Prosecutors said Craig's victims met him through a shared interest in Satan worship. They alleged Craig shackled his victims to beds, kept them in dog cages and starved them inside his Albany Street home.

He was charged with beating one victim with a cane and a cord and with raping a woman.

Johnson, who was third vice-chair of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice-chair for the Young Democrats, was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting.

Posted by: Rocks at June 30, 2008 03:04 PM (Q1lie)

36 Actually when you examine each energy option it becomes obvious that the environmentalist guys don't want any of them.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 30, 2008 03:07 PM (0+Ggj)

37 I see alternative energy and environmentalism as less activism and more an effort to create a new industry and economy. Else, why would people be getting so rich off of what should be a humanitarian issue?

Posted by: Muslihoon at June 30, 2008 03:12 PM (LR1ZU)

38 I sum up the argument thusly:

"No, you cannot go get some food at the store because I just planted seeds in the garden, and I'm not going to pay for food when I can have home grown."

Of course, you'll starve to death before anything grows, but still...that's the argument.

Posted by: Stinky Esposito at June 30, 2008 03:13 PM (LR7WH)

39

Damn straight refinery capacity can scale up to meet demand. Even though no all-new refineries have been built since 1974, the remaining ones have been expanded as needed precisely because it it easier to get the permit to expand an existing facility than it is to build an all new one. And that's counting the shuttering of the smaller, older, and less efficient facilities that were uneconomical to operate in the late 70s to the mid 80s.

We will never run out of mined biofuels and other hydrocarbons as long as there is life on this rock. There is a reason why 99.99% of the living species on this rock use hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon derivatives to maintain life on this rock.

New tech is always more expensive initially on the margin than incumbent technology until the new technology is so much more valuable economically that it displaces, but never totally eliminates, the older technology. IOW, today, the answer is drilling, refining, and building new production facilities; for the short term, the medium term, and for the long term when the new tech possibly will have proven itself to be economically valuable precisely because the new tech's costs are too high to earn a profit even with subsidies (aka legalized theft) today and for the near future.

Add 2% to world reserves? What rock are you living under? There is enough oil and gas here in the US to add 50% to 100% to world reserves. We can't get at it or quanitfy it precisely because leftists in Congress refuse to face reality and cut the oil companies loose to develop it. And that doesn't take into consideration what might be found elsewhere in the world. Nor does it take into consideration coal production or implementing modern Fisher-Tropsch coal to liquid synthesis oil and synthesis gas.

Finally, our "environmental" regulations are so far into the realm of the law of diminishing returns that we could relax them by one to two orders of magnitude and no one would notice. These regulations unnecessarily add to the costs of the old and the new technology.

Posted by: Hank Rearden at June 30, 2008 03:15 PM (tcy4k)

40

Crap, that's Fischer-Tropsch synthesis gas from coal and synthesis oil process.

Posted by: Hank Rearden at June 30, 2008 03:18 PM (tcy4k)

41 Test.

Posted by: Fred at June 30, 2008 03:26 PM (ivbbD)

42

Jack, I actually got that you were being sarcastic.  Does that make me a little retarded?

No.  That's not what made you a retard.

ronnie dobbs-

It's not an either/or argument.  We should be investing in atomic energy, wind, solar, etc.  But, when I say we, it is the free market we and not the government deciding which are the chosen industries.  Gov't should be there to provide safeguards and guidelines and not to demand which sectors are off limits and certainly not to use our tax dollars to promote one over the other.

The French, the French for God's sake, have been building safe nuke plants for years and lead the world in the percentage of power they get from atomic energy. If those cheese eating goofballs can do it, I think we can safely harness a technology we invented.  Clean coal is also very viable.  And we are sitting on billions of barrels of proven oil and oil shale reserves but our gov't is preventing us from extracting it for purely political reasons.  If we are being forced to import oil from "our enemies", it is because our solons in DC are making it so.

Incidentally, we import more oil from Africa, most notably Nigeria,  than from the middle east.  The gap between Africa and the middle east is growing.  Still, our two biggest import partners are Canada and Mexico and while they may piss us off, Mexico with all the illegals and Canada for being, well, Canadians, they are still mostly friends.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 30, 2008 03:28 PM (VBon8)

43 26

Is it a bad idea to try to limit oil consumption for reasons besides the global warming/cooling/climate change/manbearpig reasons?

I mean, I don't think it necessarily bad that we try to stop depending on an energy source that people that hate us are sitting on a bunch of.  Would nukes + electric cars be a bad thing?  Not saying 'no oil', just 'our oil - no imports'.

From what I understand, massive conservation and/or limits on individual oil consumption would have little or no impact on the market in general. The excess oil that would not be sold in the U.S. would be gobbled up by China and India, and prices would remain high. Also, state governments get a lot of funds from gas taxes. If people start not buying gas, or the government limits their consumption, the individual states will lose quite a bit of money. Consequently, they will have to hike taxes in other areas to make up for the loss.

That being said, I have no problem with nuclear power, and welcome the idea of opening new nuclear plants. As for hybrid vehicles, they sound good until you read the fine print and realize that when the hybrid battery dies, you could end up paying an exhorbitant amount for a new one. As for ethanol, cars don't perform as well, it's not significantly cheaper, and it causing food prices to run amuck.

The most logical solution would be to continue on our present course of oil usage until a sustainable solution can be developed.

 

Posted by: shibumi at June 30, 2008 04:00 PM (tZB/c)

44 Not only do the Dems dismiss anything that takes more than 2 weeks to bring online, they also dismiss anything that can't replace 100% of US oil consumption, as in "but ANWR only an produce a million barrels a day, we use 20 million."

4:  Just to clarify, Denmark's 20% figure is electricity only.  About the same as what the US gets from 100+ nuclear reactors.  Wind will never compete with nuke as far as energy density (and probably not cost), and it is intermittent, and it requires a massive restructuring of our transmission system.  Oil sands are not unproven (Athabasca) .  Shale wouldn't be if the gov't allowed for production.  If you want alternative energy, the only current viable alternative is nuclear.  I say fuck it, burn more coal.

Posted by: bunny boy at June 30, 2008 04:05 PM (pz5Q6)

45

I wonder what percentage of the Dem base reasons thusly: 

The reason alternative technologies don't exist NOW is because those technologies would divert money from Oil companies.  Oil companies know this and actively block new energy technology investment, invention and application.  If we enable government to block all oil exploration and extraction the Oil companies ability to block new technologies will decrease.  New technologies will spring onto the market whole and functional like Athena from Zeus' head.  Liberals will be heroic because the environment will be vastly improved.  New technologies will enrich the enlightened people who are the type to invest in alternative technologies.  The Middle East will shrink into obscurity as we wave them off and cease to send them money.  Texas Oil men will shrink into obscurity as we wave them off and cease to send them money.  Yay liberals!

Posted by: bonhomme at June 30, 2008 04:13 PM (cFBux)

46 Here is how to explain it to morons...

If I ask to buy some pens off your desk and you see that I'm not opening the box of pens already on my desk, your price will go up. If you see me hoarding then you'll figure there must be a reason and you should charge more.

Posted by: Ronsonic at June 30, 2008 04:20 PM (ywSvi)

47

Here in Michigan we are being worked already.

Our Democrats have yet to lift a finger to help get oil - the only thing that could help our industry and jobs.  Instead, they are banking on Gov. Granholm's plan to become the next Mecca of "new" energy.

I recall some years back when a neighbor decided to jump the future and install solar panels to heat his swimming pool.

Since five solar panels will not quite run your toaster, this was not a particularly well thought out plan.

Two years later he put in a gas pool heater with 25 grand down the drain.

And imagine how much it will cost this State to learn that lesson.

Posted by: Robert at June 30, 2008 05:07 PM (Rb4Qc)

48 Who Is Ultimately Responsible For High Gas Prices -- So That's Why We Can't Get A Compromise
Bottom line:
Democrats blame YOU!
Hence their solutions are designed to punish and rehabilitate each and every one of us!
"It's your fault so you must pay and change!"

Republicans blame Government.
Hence their solutions are designed to get Government out of the way and let Americans do what Americans do best!
"We can solve this problem without starving the world or some other stupid government run debacle if you just get out of the way!"
David

Posted by: LifeTrek at June 30, 2008 05:49 PM (tJTIW)

49

well Harry "the war is lost Reid has done it again.   He says oil and coal make us sick and we should not use them.   Up on drudge.  

 

so we have the Senate majority leader saying beyond a doubt that he will never support policies that increase our oil and coal reserves. 

 

Can we vote these people out now?   anyone that votes democratic in NOV for any democrate from president on down to dog catcher is crazy.  And I don't mean the good crazy.

 

The repubs are bad I admit but they don't want us all to live in caves and eat tofu.  

 

 

Posted by: unseen at June 30, 2008 06:49 PM (aVGmX)

50 I drove all the way across Wyoming yesterday, and all those wind farms along I-80 were producing tons of...nothing. There was no wind. Not one was turning. But at least the birds had somewhere to perch.

Posted by: adam h at June 30, 2008 08:22 PM (jdrHs)

51

For all the "Rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" talk, the cost of fuel and rising cost of food and consumer goods are capable of creating far immediate havoc than any policy that the Repubs have been accused of

Attention Dems...who the hell do you believe more capable of absorbing these costs: those minimum wage mothers you love to speak of, or the wealthy businessman/CEO?

If you Hope to get into office and maintain it for 8 years, then your stalling today, will come back to bite you in the fucking ass 4-8 years from now, you know, just about the timeframe you continue to cite as the first date of production from new drilling.

Of course, if you do manage to maintain office for 8 years, the Change to our nation and economy are likely to be so dire that fuel will be just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Posted by: jmflynny at June 30, 2008 08:29 PM (IhkE+)

52 Hmmmm.

1. Our current power grid is incapable of recharging 100 million electric vehicles.

2. There are costs when trying to transmit electricity over too long a distance.  So electrical generation must be somewhat local.

3. Wind power is highly variable.

4. Solar only works during strong daylight.

5. Most people will be recharging their cars at *night*.  So no solar power.  How many wind turbines will it take to **guarantee** that the necessary electricity will be available throughout the USA?

http://http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2008/Q2/mail524.html#Saturday

"I threw together some swag numbers to estimate the "impact" on the power grid of 100 million (as a round number) electric automobiles that get about 5 miles per kWh, a number roughly yanked from Wikipedia.

Then I yanked a commute of 10 miles for each of the cars, be it the commute to work or the commute for shopping and other soccer-mommy duties. That's 2kWh per day per car, or roughly 200 gigawatt-hours of electricity. That's a not inconsiderable amount of energy. If spread out over a day it's "roughly" 10 gigawatts of continuous drain on the grid. But if the cars charge over 5 hours and are all plugged in within a couple hours of dusk then figure the drain from the cars becomes 40 gigawatts peak. That's like adding a second California to the power grid day in and day out 365.24 days per year, at the very least. I figure week-end travel may amount to more miles than commute travel. That's why I figure all 365.24 days of the year. But what really matters is the peak drain all hitting at about the same time.

Where is that power coming from Pelosi? Please tell me Reid? I want to know Obama. I demand an answer, now."


Posted by: memomachine at June 30, 2008 08:42 PM (VFHt1)

53

Really? electric cars, solar and wind are "unproven" technologies. you might want to tell Denmark that 20% of their power generation comes from an unproven technology. Speaking of unproven technologies - what is your feeling about recovery of oil from sands and shales

I spend about 3 months a year in Europe.  I'm well aware of Europe's use of wind and nuclear power.  Good for them.  We should be doing more of it too.  Write your Congressman and Senators, hell, write Ted Kennedy, so we can have more wind power.  But if you think we are going to put up enough windmills in this country, the world's largest user of energy by an order of magnitude, to fuel all our needs, you are smoking better shit than I can get ahold of.  There are 5 1/2 million people in Denmark.  There are more in Manhattan.  Is that your plan?  Brilliant. 

Nobody is stopping you from putting solar on your house, so obviously you have done so.  No?  Why not?  Oh, it cost about 20 grand in order to outfit a 2000 sq ft home.  Yea, I'd call that pretty reasonable.  Guess you hate the environment.  I'm sure all the low income Dems on fixed income are gonna be all over this.

As for electirc cars, super, where's yours?  Do you plug it in ever night?  Where does the electricity come from, your own windmill?  No?  Didn't think so.  Here's why.  They suck. They are tremendously inefficient, the batteries are a recycling nightmare and best of all they are called hybids for a reason.  They are half electric and half pure satan, also know as internal combustion.  Yea, they burn gas and oil.  Horror. They are nothing more than a boutique item for the liberal guilt crowd and the truth is they are worse for the environment in the long run than a 10 year old VW diesel.  We are a decade away from an electic car that provides the performance of a fucking Yugo.  If that.

I think oil sand recovery is great.  Canada is at 1.2 million barrels today and projected to grow to 3 million barrels by 2020.  Alberta alone has made over 4 billion in oil sands development from 2003 to 2007.  Given that we get more oil from Canada than any other country, you might be using that sand oil to gas up your car. Pretty damn good, wouldn't you say?

Is that what you were asking?

Posted by: JackStraw at June 30, 2008 08:54 PM (VBon8)

54

A sandal wearing kid from MOPIRG (Missouri Public Interest Research Group, you know, the assholes who spend all their time sueing the govt. in order to do things like keep the price of oil high because they consistently get their asses kicked at the ballot box).

He started into his speil about solar and wind power.  I interrupted ;

"Let me ask you a question Josh.  How old are you?"

Uh, 20.

"Do you have a job?"

Uh, no.

"Do you own anything?"

Uh, no.

"Pay taxes?"

Uh, no.

Dismissively, "Get the fuck out of here.  Come back in 20 yrs when you know something... anything."

Josh and his sandals slump off to find someone else to sign his little petition.

Posted by: rickinstl at June 30, 2008 08:58 PM (s2KFu)

55

I'm sure Boeing is working fevereshly on their new solar, wind, electric powered 747.  I want to be there when that bitch gets of the ground!

Alternate energy sources MAY SOMEDAY come into their own, but the fact remains that we are right now a liquid fuel economy and anyone who thinks otherwise has their head up their ass.

Posted by: Len - KC at July 01, 2008 05:03 AM (jB1Q9)

56 Your blog's main page- but not the individual pages, apparently- are all center justified, starting with this post on down. Probably an unclosed tag somewhere. Just an unrelated FYI.

Posted by: physics geek at July 01, 2008 07:55 AM (MT22W)

57 I remember listening to an African economist - Nigerian I think - lamenting the environmentalist's habit of blocking adoption of fossil fuels by developing nations. The NGO's were strongly encouraging the use of PV solar technology by rural populations whilst actively discouraging/threatening his oil rich emerging nation through the cudgel of witholding aid monies should they decide to expand fossil fuel use.

 He said something along the lines of;  Developing nations cannot build a steel industry that runs on solar energy technology. Technology that even citizens of rich industrialized nations can't afford.

These elitist commie-greens hate industrialization period. They consistently come down on the side of promoting universal poverty. They use their thin gauzy tolerance and sustainability to essentially discriminate against the poorest, and/or brownest populations on the planet.

On the little Caribbean island I live on, we are lucky enough to host one of the largest refineries in the Americas. It provides thousands of jobs and accounts for the largest single source of local government revenue that isn't in the form of handouts from the Feds. Thankfully it was built in the sixties because should it have even been proposed today, legions of green activists and their lawyers would stop it by any means necessary as they have so many other projects.

The 'green' anti-prosperity coalition here is primarily made up of a curious alliance of convenience between anticolonialist pan-African Mugabe wannabe's edumacated in stateside institutions or through [redundant] marxist outreach programs, and liberal transplants from the states trying to escape "the man" to live the noble savage life sipping rum under the safety of the American flag. Predictably, they've become 'The Man' and they've been overly successful in stopping development whilst the rest of us scratch out a living as best we can.

For them:

Hotels? Bad
Rocket assembly plant? Bad
New power generating infrastructure not wholly owned by the local government? Bad
Commercial fishing? BAD

Organic farming on an island that gets less than 30 inches of rain a year; GOOD

Meanwhile the only 'green-collar' jobs that have been produced have been a couple one or two man operations run by transplanted stateside hippyspawn with a talent for suckering fellow kool-aid drinkers in posession of more money than brains. These folk are salivating at the prospect of Jimmeh Carter the second.

Yet despite all the existing federal and local subsidies/rebates, despite constant guilt tripping propaganda, despite a power distribution grid that farts every time it rains, and even though electricity rates are an astronomical 46 cents per kilowatt (thanks to our government owned/run power utility), they still collectively can't convince the general population of working class islanders to part with their hard-earned money.

We apparently don't want the bs of building power sheds in our yards, or the constant upkeep, and ultimate expense of replacing battery banks every few years. We don't want the added costs of  protecting PV panels from storm debris. Nor do we relish paying out the ass to erect screaming "no maintainance" wind generators that break down every couple years. Most importantly we simply cannot afford the cash required to go 'green' in the first place. We simply cannot afford to Prius our collective asses to a calender full of cocktail events and costume balls for Gaia. We buy trucks and SUV's for a whole host of practical reasons.

We are a microcosm of the U.S. mainland.

As a result the sheer frustration of the green coalition of regressive hippies and commie malcontents is palpable. They NEED government intervention. They need Hope & Change (TM) and they need it now.

Mass suicide by revolutionary nannies.

Posted by: monkeyfan at July 01, 2008 11:24 AM (cEE8N)

58

 We are one of the leaders in discount ; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www. ;" lang="EN-US">myabercrombiestore.com">abercrombie coats</a>. Get a cute ; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www. ;" lang="EN-US">myabercrombiestore.com">abercrombie jackets</a> to keep you warm this winter or order a vintage looking ; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;" lang="EN-US"><a href="http://www. ;" lang="EN-US">myabercrombiestore.com">abercrombie outlet</a>. Abercrombie & Fitch are the leader in US beach wear, place your order before we sell out. Sign up to our mailing list for regular updates of the latest styles.

Posted by: abercrombie coats at October 08, 2010 07:26 AM (B5l5Z)

59 Has the reputation of coach online griselda, initial design inspiration was made from a coach purse , brand builder in a Caha was watching a softball game site, surprised to discover the use with cheap coach purse , more soft characteristics, so he went home and try to casual COACH Backpacks , make it more soft, has no cracks, wear characteristics, and as long as the simple use wet cloth to wipe, can maintain leather perfect as new, of course, casual Coach sunglasses that convenient durable customers immediately love!

Posted by: coach online at May 03, 2011 08:35 PM (VR5Hj)

60 Reebok zigtechshoes are manufactured exclusively by the world famous company,reebok outlet. Before you purchase anything, it is necessary thatyou think for yourself whether the investment is worth the money or price you pay or not. It brings not only chic, modern and fashionable shoes, but also medically fitreebok shoesfor the wearers. Thereebok kid shoeshas become extremely popular all over the world. You can see reebok shoes in many occasions. It's a good choice to own a pair ofreebok Basketball shoesto make you more fashionable. Here you can enjoy big

Posted by: reebok at May 16, 2011 09:22 PM (nBGaH)

61 PDF Creator et as virtual printer, creates PDF document file, JPEG, PNG, PCX, BMP, TIFF, PS, EPS format from Word, Excel, PowerPoint, image and text files.
PDF to BMP Converter is a windows application to convert pdf to bmp format. With pdf to bitmap software, single or batch processing are allowed and if converting the multiple pages pdf file, one page for one bmp picture.

Posted by: xuefei at May 17, 2011 04:38 AM (6ebjU)

62 nice nice post!

Posted by: HASDRESS at August 14, 2011 11:57 PM (VvH4b)

63 I personally have trouble making that point because it's so goddamned obvious I feel like I'm condescending even to mention it.

Posted by: sound card driver at August 17, 2011 02:25 AM (XdM1T)

Posted by: Anna at September 05, 2011 10:39 PM (TRBnk)

65

The dvd to ipad mac converter is the most powerful video tools package such as Any Video Converter, 2D to 3D Movie Conversion tool, DVD Ripper, Video Editor, DVD and Blu-ray disc burner, system utilities and more in one package. What is more, it also can change 2d to 3d.

Posted by: 3d video converter at November 23, 2011 04:47 AM (xfoLW)

Posted by: abc at December 04, 2011 08:16 AM (IYh2x)

67 I genuinely enjoy examining on this web site , it has got superb blog posts and There are welcome to my blog to see mainly exchange www.apple.com/ipod/start and www.ipod.com/ipod.com info.

Posted by: mmaks at May 03, 2012 02:54 AM (9sqdK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
122kb generated in CPU 0.1, elapsed 1.2183 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.142 seconds, 303 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.