Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America's Energy Policy: Obstruct Supply, Marvel at Price
HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Jan 30, 2006 | Mac Johnson

Posted on 01/30/2006 9:07:06 AM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: oh8eleven
Here in Alaska, our Repub Governor is taking the industry to court to force them to either develop or give up the leases they have been sitting on for the last 20 years. Top it off with the fact that our repub legislators have awarded the oil & gas industry tax incentives that have effectively removed 75% of taxes they had agreed to pay originally in their sweetheart deal.

I'm all for free market too within reason. With record profits, high prices, lack of development; doesn't take a genius. Maybe when gas is over 5 bucks, the repubs will do the right thing. Trouble is then the dems will be in for 8 years and then look out everyone. Repubs only have themselves to blame.

21 posted on 01/30/2006 10:10:58 AM PST by Eska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Chinese (amongst others) are developing "pebble-bed modular reactors (PBMR). These are inherently safe; and, being modular, can be scaled to any size. The modules would be mass produced -- greatly reducing the cost of construction.

The US is doing some research; but the Chinese have the big edge -- they won't broker any opposition.

http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed
22 posted on 01/30/2006 10:19:15 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA (")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
"The Republicans have been trying to change this for years"

I find this statement lacking something when I look around and see that our country's leaders are predominently Republican. We control the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the governorships and have appointed six of the nine SCOTUS justices. We the people are reacting to the lunacy in our government, but the "conservative" pols we've put in charge aren't doing the things we put them there to do. I know that Bush has made a small attempt to drill in Alaska, but I haven't seen him turn it into the extremely important national security issue that it really is, and hammer away at the brain-dead Kerrys and Kennedys who stand in the way of making America energy independent.

23 posted on 01/30/2006 10:28:53 AM PST by TheCrusader ("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven

Upon reflection, I think you're right:)


24 posted on 01/30/2006 10:30:26 AM PST by Sabatier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
But America will not pursue nuclear energy, any more than it will drill for its own oil.

Oh, but it will.

Projected global energy demand will require the discovery of 87 new Saudi Arabias to supply the energy required by 2100. Think we'll discover even one? 20?

What will make up the shortfall? Not corn, not windmills, not anything. Except nuclear.

America has vast deposits of uranium, and if someone would reverse Commie Carter's Executive Order forbidding breeder reacters it wouldn't matter anyway.

America is going to have that discussion about nuclear power. It has no choice.

25 posted on 01/30/2006 10:36:34 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
The Republicans have been trying to change this for years.
Really? We've had the house & senate for what - 10 years?
The WH for the last six. What the hell are they waiting for?

Why pick on BOR? At least he keeps the subject in play.
26 posted on 01/30/2006 10:59:13 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Eska
Maybe when gas is over 5 bucks, the repubs will do the right thing.
Sad to say, it ain't gonna' happen.
27 posted on 01/30/2006 11:01:24 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; King Prout; ..
The Counterrevolution in Military Affairs

Melanie Phillips: Hamastan

Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

28 posted on 01/30/2006 11:34:50 AM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Thanks for the link.


29 posted on 01/30/2006 11:36:47 AM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Mac ought to run for Congress. He, like they, has all the questions and none of the answers.

Don't ask, because I will tell you.





30 posted on 01/30/2006 12:26:38 PM PST by G.Mason ("I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone" -- Bill Cosby)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Some stories that generally follow the theme of this article:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/gasoline_and_government.htm



31 posted on 01/30/2006 1:15:10 PM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/israel_palestine_conflict.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

"He was complaining that the government didn't dictate what kind of cars we could drive and bashing "big oil". I thought this is the most ill informed and illogical idiot I ever heard. Several callers had called him Bill but that didn't ring a bell. Finally one called him O'Reilly and the light went on."

This is correct - Big oil does not drive the train of what cars we as individuals drive. Personally, I refuse to drive vehicles that get poor fuel efficiency. I drive a VW Jetta turbo Diesel - 45mpg, year 2000. my car before that was fuel efficient as well as the previous one.

When oil - and by extension gasoline - was cheap, no one cared about fuel efficiency - now, with prices the way they are, the populace at large cares - this population (voter constituency) as well as the other way we vote - with our check books - will ultimately drive fuel efficiency on a loarge scale, and we are seeing it happen right now - Detroit doesn't know what to do with all the power-pushing gas guzzling luxury SUV's sitting in stock. Used car dealerships get more and more in on trade every day.

I just laugh.

This is the wakeup call. NOW is time for the blow-hards in congress to ACT - not pontificate upon the merits of this technology over that. That's the job of business - to develop new & improved technology.

Sorry for the rant.


32 posted on 01/30/2006 2:24:39 PM PST by roaddog727 (P=3/8 A. or, P=plenty...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Thanks for the link!


33 posted on 01/30/2006 2:56:17 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
there is oil off the coast of California, but we will not drill for it for fear of disrupting Barbra Streisand’s Feng Shui.

And, now, they've discovered that the continental shelf off the California coast is virtually paved with methane hydrates.

What will it do to Babs' Feng Shui when Exxon (or Peabody Coal) starts mining it?

34 posted on 01/30/2006 5:03:38 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Superb article.

Thanks for the post and for the ping.

Excellent observations by many posters too!!

He should have made the argument against solar, stronger, though.

Solar heating works because the 2nd Law of Thermo allows essentially 100% efficiency. However, solar produced electricity is limited in efficiency. Because the produced energy density is low, there is a very high recirculating energy.

In order to make 1 silicon solar cell that will produce 10 kjoules of energy over its lifetime, you need 5-6 kjoules of energy to make the damn thing. You spend all your money and energy making more silicon cells... and very little net energy.

That is why solar is so expensive. Moreover, the advertised cost of solar is much below the true cost. They base the cost on cheap energy from oil to produce the cells. It is not a self consistent calculation.

Nuclear is the only way to go.


35 posted on 01/30/2006 6:41:45 PM PST by 2ndreconmarine (Horse feces (929 citations) vs ID (0 citations) and horse feces wins!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


36 posted on 01/30/2006 9:29:40 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Lando Lincoln; quidnunc; .cnI redruM; Valin; King Prout; SJackson; dennisw; ...

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

37 posted on 01/31/2006 5:46:58 AM PST by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The actual title of the article is Liberals' Energy Policy: Obstruct Supply, Marvel at Price.

But, as other posters have noted, the GOP isn't making much of its current opportunity to change things.

38 posted on 01/31/2006 8:11:24 AM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative (Eschew obfuscation, ya'll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
But, as other posters have noted, the GOP isn't making much of its current opportunity to change things.

Without 60 reliable, conservative or libertarian votes in the Senate, what's the GOP going to do?

39 posted on 01/31/2006 8:18:57 AM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Without 60 reliable, conservative or libertarian votes in the Senate, what's the GOP going to do?

Absolutely nothing, apparently. They could at least go on a fact offensive to help educate people who have only heard one side of the story.

40 posted on 01/31/2006 8:27:21 AM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative (Eschew obfuscation, ya'll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson