ROSEN: The new-energy depression
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 1, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
The so-called "new-energy economy" is being greatly oversold by politicians and enviros as the pathway to prosperity and energy independence. In fact, it will deliver neither.
To the extent that renewable and non-fossil fuel energy alternatives can significantly replace conventional sources anytime soon, they'll do so only at considerably greater expense. Ironically, the most efficient non-fossil fuel energy source is nuclear but is opposed by envirologues, defined as ideologically driven enviro extremists. Windmills, solar, photovoltaic, biomass, etc. may have some long-term potential but currently fall far short of oil, natural gas and coal in their BTU efficiency.
The new-energy economy that would accompany any precipitous shift away from BTU-efficient energy sources would be one far poorer than the old-energy economy that we now enjoy, $4-a-gallon gasoline notwithstanding. "New-energy depression" doesn't sound quite as good. Less BTU efficiency means higher energy overhead which means sharply lower standards of living for most. I say most, not all, because this new, less efficient energy economy might still enrich those who invest in or are employed by energy industries and companies favored by government regulations and mandates and subsidized at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.
Don't be seduced by the deceptive promise of jobs created in this new energy economy if the new, less efficient energy jobs replace old, more efficient ones.
If the supply of fossil fuels were exhausted, we'd have no alternative but to go to more expensive alternatives. But the supply hasn't been exhausted. True, fossil fuels are not inexhaustible. At some time in the future, the world no doubt will transition to a new energy economy. In the meantime, fossil fuels - petroleum, natural gas, coal, oil shale, tar sands - will last for another 100 years or more while practical alternative energy technology evolves. Our task in the short run is to develop aggressively those fossil fuel resources, including offshore oil deposits, ANWR and as much as 2 trillion barrels of shale oil in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. And, no, doing so won't despoil the Rocky Mountains. There's plenty of land, and this constitutes only small fraction of it. Furthermore, modern technology can minimize environmental impact. Contrary to the claims of U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar - the Senate's leading oil shale obstructionist - the technology is feasible and imminent. If it weren't, oil companies wouldn't be clamoring to invest in the project.
Global warming alarmists such as Al Gore would have us kick our fossil fuel "addiction" cold-turkey in order to save the world from impending disaster. Since I don't believe human activity is a significant factor in climate change, I'm not moved by this argument. Global temperatures have increased only about one degree in the past 100 years and not all in the last 10. Sea levels have risen and fallen, and polar ice has expanded and contracted since this planet's birth, long predating humankind. If the climate does change significantly in the future, we'll adjust, as humans have in the past. If not, we'll all die, as will happen anyway when the sun goes dark in 2 billion years.
A YouTube video currently popular with envirologues features a reasonable-sounding man offering his version of the precautionary principle, whereby the possibility of danger trumps all other considerations. Presenting a global warming doomsday scenario, he argues that the downside risk is so great we have no rational alternative but to do anything and everything necessary to forestall it. By this reasoning, public policy would be determined through an auction with the winning bidder being he who fabricates the most harrowing prediction. OK, I can play that game, too. If you elect Barack Obama president, he will massively expand the welfare state, drive the U.S. economy into a deep depression, undermine U.S. foreign policy, embolden our enemies and instigate a nuclear holocaust. Therefore, you have no rational alternative but to vote for John McCain. See how easy it is?
Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
August 1, 2008
2:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Spoken like a true Republican with head firmly planted in the sand. Rosen, you and your disaster capitalist friends have done your best over the last eight years to ruin the American economy and respect for the rule of law. Of course you just represent the logical endpoint of Saint Ronnie's "Morning in America" which in reality is turning out to be "Apocalypse Now" brought to us by Oilmeisters Cheney and Bush. Keep the oil and blood flowing and don’t ask any questions.
Killing the other, whether it is nature, indigenous cultures, or civil liberties seems to be a genuine trait of Republicans. If you can’t control it then try and kill it via the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on the Constitution, the war on the natural world… And by all means do your best to capitalize and make a profit off the death and destruction as it occurs.
Soon the destruction of humanity’s habitat will be complete and the living biosphere will adapt and eliminate the insatiable hungry ghosts stalking the earth. That’s you, me and the rest of “advanced civilization” about to recede into the dustbin of history, choking on our own greed and stupidity.
But by all means keep on keeping on…. And good luck with all that oil and your stock portfolio - If you manage to steal a third Bush term and install Grandpa you might be forced to eat the paper that your investments are printed on for lunch, as the world burns around you. Praise Jesus and pass the mustard.
August 1, 2008
4:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
"drive the U.S. economy into a deep depression"
Mr Rosen just like all the other rightwing nuts come out of the cave and see what is going on now.
August 1, 2008
5:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scootie writes:
The over/under for non-relevant, off topic, socialistic rhetoric is at 8:15am; c'mon HTH, I've got the under.
August 1, 2008
6:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
"If you manage to steal a third Bush term and install Grandpa...."
Taoistblockhead,
If McCain wins both the popular and electoral votes as Bush did in 2004, does that mean that McCain won the election or that he stole it?
I'm not saying that's what will happen. In fact, my own guess right now is that Obama will win the election- but that is just a guess.
I'm just curious why it is that when the Democratic candidate loses an election liberals feel the need to scream that it's not fair and the election was stolen. It makes you guys sound like a child throwing a temper tantrum after losing a game, screaming that the opponent cheated or didn't play fair.
August 1, 2008
6:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
taoistblockhead - you and the voices in your head must be very lonely together.
August 1, 2008
6:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
ML writes:
"If you elect Barack Obama president, he will massively expand the welfare state, drive the U.S. economy into a deep depression, undermine U.S. foreign policy, embolden our enemies and instigate a nuclear holocaust."
Gee, hasn't W already accomplished 3 out of 5?
August 1, 2008
6:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
Mr Rosen
This microgeneration windmill culls household electricity draw by 33% coupled with heat pump technology according to manufacturers and DOE ratings not only reduces residential monthly energy consumption by an added 40-60% this per household 73-93% per month savings will be feeding back into the grid cutting consumers cost and with regular maintenance these devices perpetually pay for themselves!
Well NO WONDER you are downplaying this technology, to quote Mr Bush our economy would collapse NOW WE SEE the real truth is this quite literally breaks the coal, oil & natural gas industries consumer stranglehold for that of which you belong is the "OUR" he references
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment...
....This is blue skies thinking - but it needs something of the kind to make individuals change their habits. Everywhere there are green shoots of what might be done, if serious money and political attention were devoted to it now. Take micro-generation. You can buy a small windmill to stick in the garden or on the side of your house for just £900: it plugs into an ordinary 13 amp domestic plug, cuts electricity bills by a third and can feed into the grid. The former energy minister has one.
August 1, 2008
6:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
windskull, how many years does your wonderful technology take to pay for itself in full?
August 1, 2008
6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
All the watermelons (with the exception of Eli, who is definitely not a watermelon) are up bright and early this morning, pushing their envirosocialism and ignoring the facts.
...most of them are too dull to even see that Rosen was being fecitious, making fun of envirosocialistic doomsayers when he said, "If you elect Barack Obama president, he will massively expand the welfare state, drive the U.S. economy into a deep depression, undermine U.S. foreign policy, embolden our enemies and instigate a nuclear holocaust." Get real all, Rosen doesn't believe that, but it is certainly as far out the to the Right as Gore and the mentioned Youtube video are out to the Left. Scare in the votes. Well, they have this crowd fooled, don't they? Both scenarios unrealistic.
August 1, 2008
7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
"All the watermelons (with the exception of Eli, who is definitely not a watermelon) "
Spencerr,
I will have you know, sir, that I am a proud communist. Damn you righties and your Rush Limbaugh inspired willful ignorance! Don't you make me post some links that I didn't read, spencerr, because I swear to God I will do it.
August 1, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
spencerr since jethronomics is evidently your forte' pull off them clod crunchers air out your digits and try to abacus the simplisticy behind converting the windmill cost of 900 British pounds to King George`s near worthless dullers...if that`s too stressful try xe.com it will do the math for you!
When this article was first published May 2005 you can find it by doing a "G" search of "capitulation to nuclear" click the first entry by Polly Toyner
The paragraph I noted is about 2/3 down the page the windmill could be bought for about $500 US and a 2.5ton 13seer heat pump can be bought wholesale for a grand with sizeable federal tax credits check out the powersave website & with Republicans blocking energy assistance funding & rumors of $5LP &$9/gal propane this winter you tell me how quick you will recoup your investment
August 1, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
windskull, no need for the insults, just asking a simple question. I have always heard, without doing much follow up research, that doing things like installing windmills and solar or photovoltaic technology on one's house takes upwards of thirty years to pay themselves off. And besides, I bet you will make more than a few of your neighbors mad if all of a sudden there is a windmill sticking out more than ten feet over the roof of your house.
I don't feel like fighting with you about how economically-retarded extreme environmentalism is. Call me Jethro all you want. Nuclear is cheap (perhaps the cheapest) and clean, and that still isn't good enough for you.
August 1, 2008
8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
seeingeyeseesall writes:
My home's renewable energy systems reduce demand on a coal fired plant by enough to allow Mr. Rosen to turn up his A/C without worry during this unusual hot spell we're having... of course, it couldn't be related to the global warming myth ...
August 1, 2008
8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And windskull,
Somehow the author of your "magic bullet" wind article completely blows off nuclear...something about nuclear proliferation and waste disposal, when nuclear is the cheapest power on anyone's grid right now.
No one doubts current global warming (though it has actually cooled slightly in the last ten years); they doubt that it is man made.
There is no magic bullet, but nuclear and new clean coal technologies are just as viable as solutions to our energy chrisis, as are wind and solar.
Furthermore, your author pegs herself as an envirosocialist when she starts railing about how we can use the buying and selling of carbon useage quotas to redistribute income from the horrible rich energy abusers to the righteous poor.
You don't think that we have already done enough to work on helping renewable techology??? Gas is four dollars a gallon. Let's just say that the market has already provided enough incentive...not to mention the subsidies green companies and their users get.
Government nannyism, in the name of environmentalism and for the true cause of socialism.
August 1, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
stuckiniowa writes:
Windskull -- are you talking about an open or closed loop geothermal heat pump? If open loop -- do you see that as being a waste of water -- our next precious resource?
Are you planning on using your heatpump for your hot water also - or just for heating? Is 2.5 ton big enough, or do you need secondary sources for your heating? Who is going to install this heat pump that you bought wholesale? how much is it going to cost -- from my understanding somewhere in the range of $10,000.
Just asking.
August 1, 2008
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
It's too bad some people are drawing such a hard line in the sand against renewable energies. The market is actually progressing rapidly in that area, especially in terms of powering our homes. For example, some companies are now offering solar financing that removes the previous price barrier associated with the upfront cost of investment to install a residential solar energy system.
Regarding driving, we will depend on oil for some time, it's true. But, even there the market is taking action, with more and more businesses allowing telecommuting and four-day work weeks. While that may not lower the price of gas, it will still result in paying less for it if one can simply use less of it each week. (Might even do some cultural good as families will have more time to spend at home and keep a better eye on what their kids are up to!)
And for those who blame the "environmental extremists" for the high price of gas, well, if it's easier to assign blame and point fingers, so be it. But that entire argument rests on the assumptions that we don't drill much here in the US and that what we do drill is mostly sold here.
Both are untrue assumptions. The US is the third largest oil producer in the world, and my understanding is that 60% of what is produced is sold on the world markets, not domestically.
Someone on this forum once told me he didn't care if we were the third largest producer of oil, that he still didn't consider us serious players because we weren't drilling everywhere there is oil. I guess that would make no country a real player, since there are untapped reserves in every oil-producing country. I guess if you're in the timber business, you're not a serious player if you're not chopping down every forest, or if you're in the food business, you're not a serious player if you're not growing food on every available piece of land.
Some increasingly weird logic coming out of the anti-renewable energy crowd. I would say THOSE people are the extremists, led by very slick and persuasive propaganda-spreaders like Newt Gingrich and the Rocky's own Mike Rosen.
I don't think history is going to look kindly at these obstructionist naysayers. In fact, I think they will be squarely categorized with the superstitious extremists who burned Copernicus at the stake.
August 1, 2008
8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
spencerr/eli
Yes, and no.
Yes, they (the ultra-libs) take Rosen literally -- way too literally -- all the time. They do not give him credit for any sense of humor ... or anything else, for that matter.
No, they will never admit that a Republican can "win" an election against a popular Democrat without some underlying fraud.
But, then, you already knew both answers.
Count on it: Rosen's last paragraph will be cut-and-pasted continually through the rest of the day, out of context.
Count on it: if McCain wins (a highly unlikely event) there will be cries of "foul" ... no matter what the margin is.
Have a good, hot Friday!
August 1, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
mytwosense,
Good morning! How's the fam?
I think you hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph...market! :)
And with a decline in gas useage, there will be a decline in price, no matter how marginal. Hey, it all adds up.
And any increase of supply, even if it goes into the world market, will lower costs, no matter how marginal.
It's funny how the price of oil and gas fell suddenly during the coincidence of two events, Bush repealing dear old dad's freeze on domestic exploration and news that Americans drove much less than during the same time last year. Maybe we will see the speculation problem (only part of the problem to be sure) start to wane now that it appears that oil is on its way down.
We will probably never see two dollars a gallon again, but hey, I'll take a five cent decrease in gas any day.
August 1, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
"It's too bad some people are drawing such a hard line in the sand against renewable energies. The market is actually progressing rapidly in that area, especially in terms of powering our homes."
Personally, I think the technology regarding renewable energy is great. No need to draw a line in the sand against them- the more that is developed, the better off everyone is. Where it becomes a problem though is when government gets involved.
On another thread a while back, one poster gave a link to a company selling solar roof shingles. When installed in the home they were incorporated into the house's energy system, and would provide about 30% of that house's power.
As with any new technology, the stuff was kind of expensive. However, there is virtually no reason to think that as the demand increases and as the technology improves the price will drop considerably. This happens with every other type of technology that attracts the interest of consumers, and it happens without the help of government.
As the technology for more efficient energy improves, as it gradually has been for 150 years, the technology will become more affordable and will appear in more and more homes. This trend has been going on for a long time, so why do we need government to take care of things now?
August 1, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Good points, Eli! You crazy commy!
August 1, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
Why don't we drill in Iraq. I hear they have the second largest oil reserves in the world.
August 1, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Good morning Eli & Spencerr!
Regarding government involvement, I guess I'm not entirely clear on what you mean. Maybe you could further detail.
What immediately came to my mind, and this may not have been what you meant, is government financing in various ways, through tax incentives or awarding contracts.
I believe government has done both for numerous industries, especially in the arena of awarding contracts. Think about it, Henry Ford's Model T wouldn't have been much of a market smash if there weren't roads for it drive on. The US has always poured money into our transportation infrastructure, and that's made a lot of private businesses rich, and employed hundreds of thousands of people.
And I don't mind my tax dollars going towards research of an effective electric car battery. I believe the Japanese government almost fully funded the same for the development of the Prius, which is the biggest selling hybrid car on the world market.
I see government involvement as a plus in several ways, in terms of reducing our need to drive as much. Here are a couple:
1) Investing heavily in mass transit.
2) Lifting arcane zoning laws to allow for more mixed use residential and commercial development in existing urban and suburban areas.
Both would be a boom to the construction industry, which is struggling right now, at least in certain sectors. If we had a state-of-the-art mass transit system in all the major cities and larger towns, that would reduce the need to drive individual cars, while providing a more comfortable mode of transportation than buses.
With the second, we would develop living places where people could work and shop much close to home than they can in many neighborhoods. You look at a place like Highlands Ranch with its labyrinth of residential streets. None of those streets can have a small grocery store, a restaurant, etc. on them. The kinds of locally owned businesses that are practically extinct in many suburbs. A lot of those streets don't even have sidewalks! Residents have to drive anytime they want to shop or eat out. It may only be a matter of a few miles, but that adds up in gas and traffic when tens of thousands of people are forced to do that.
A lot of wealth was created in this country through the construction industry. I say we keep 'em in business, to improve the quality of our lives in some new ways. And I don't see how we can do that without some government financing, just like we used government financing to build our current auto infrastructure.
August 1, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
The Democrat policy to restrict development of conventional energies bears significant responsibility for our high energy prices now. The Democrats want high energy prices and severe restrictions on development of conventional energy sources to push their Utopian view of energy. No conservative argues that private individuals should not invest in any energy source, conventional or non conventional. The Democrats and their green allies are pursuing an elitist and immoral policy to purposely drive up energy prices by restricting large amounts of conventional energy from world markets. The Democrats are terrified that development of conventional energy sources will lower energy prices and make non conventional energy sources even less competitive.
The mandates and subsidies for renewable energy have produced boondoggles such as corn based ethanol. If these technologies were forced to compete without subsidies and mandates, we would see real solutions, not boondoggles. If the Democrats and their green allies prevail, an energy meltdown is coming. Not enough new power plants and refinery capacity are being added. Many coal fired plants have been cancelled. The renewable substitutes are much more expensive.
The misguided Democrat policies are clear to the rest of the world. The rest of the world is developing all available energy sources, not just the favored energy sources. The developing world is developing plenty of coal and nuclear plants. Every country that has oil and natural gas reserves is aggressively developing them. The Democrats and their green allies are alone in their delusions and war against conventional energy sources.
August 1, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Eli: "As the technology for more efficient energy improves, as it gradually has been for 150 years, the technology will become more affordable and will appear in more and more homes. This trend has been going on for a long time, so why do we need government to take care of things now?"
Well, the technology for energy-efficient solar systems, both residential and commercial, is market-viable now. That's why more and more people are having them installed in their homes, why businesses like Whole Foods have them (at least in some of their stores), and why commercial plants are being built all over the place, like the one that is going to power a great deal of DIA.
Tax incentives encourage more people and businesses to install them, which will help to drive prices down for everyone. If only a smattering of people are installing these systems, there's not much capital available to accommodate price decreases, much less continued R&D.
August 1, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Auto infrastructure crucial for economy! You betcha'. It is a public good like the military, which anyone can use without depriving anyone else's use of it (if you ignore congestion, which we can for this point). Public goods such as police, fire department, military, and roads require public financing because of the freeloader problem.
And you know that your beloved battery causes environmental degradation of a different sort at huge levels, right?
I think that the market will take care of mass transit by itself eventually, especially as congestion becomes a bigger problem (as it is now in D.C.). I don't think we should spend huge tax dollars on it because it is not even close to self-sufficient and is not necessary for industry and commerce, though it would certainly ease congestion and gasoline consumption. I hear that there is an entrepreneur looking into some sort of crazy mass transit scheme moving east and west...similar to a ski lift or something like that. I don't know the details, but apparently, it is not too expensive and will provide him with a handsome profit if he can be successful with it.
Lastly, even though it goes against your grains, Highlands Ranch and a lot of communities were built goofily the way they were by home development builders because people don't like the traffic caused by using their sidestreets. Nobody will venture down richsnob lane because it probably just goes in a circle or dead ends. I prefer living in a neighborhood like that, rather than the Englewood one I grew up in, where if Broadway got busy, people would just fill up Logan or even one of the smaller streets with stop signs.
August 1, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
mmanino: "The rest of the world is developing all available energy sources, not just the favored energy sources. The developing world is developing plenty of coal and nuclear plants. Every country that has oil and natural gas reserves is aggressively developing them."
Again, the US is the THIRD largest producer of oil in the world. And did you know we're the SECOND largest producer of coal?
What exactly will it take to drive home these basic facts to those of you that continue to bleat the US isn't a major, major player in the energy industry?
August 1, 2008
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
mytwosense, if the U.S. refined Colorado and ANWR coal to the maximum sustainable tempo, they would be the number one producer of oil in the world, and we have the largest coal reserves in the world, so why are we only the second largest producer?
August 1, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, yes, any car battery, in fact, any good that isn't biodegradable poses environmental issues. And mass transit and living closer to where we work and shop could reduce the need for so many cars. At least it might compel more families to do with one car, instead of two or three. It may not completely solve the problem, but it least it would make a dent in it.
Also, I don't know how you propose for the "market" to finance billion dollar mass transit projects on its own. The market doesn't own our infrastructure, at least not technically. We the people do - so we the people would be paying for that. Via government contracts.
August 1, 2008
9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
http://www.pickensplan.com/
I found this interesting from a former oil man, and corporate raider - in other words not your typical eviro-wacko:
August 1, 2008
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
mark79trans writes:
Research and development into solar, wind, etc. is good. I would love to see more nuclear plants go on-line. It is not a matter of drawing a line in the sand against renewable energy. It is a matter of the extremist agenda that is fighting the use of fossil fuels and misinforming the public. Like it or not we need them to sustain are economy, our people, and our standard of living. It is the extremist agenda that proposes the cold turkey approach and fights exploration, drilling, and nuclear at every turn. A reasonable approach would establish markets for alternative energy and transpiration while sustaining what we currently have. Let technology, time, and markets make the changes.
If the environmentalists want to make a difference, perhaps all the money wasted on politics could be better used on buying and installing scrubbers on the unfiltered coal power plants in developing countries rather then making our lives miserable.
Additionally, I am extremely weary of the extremists who push policies that hurt our economy and our families and then use Bush as a scapegoat for all the hardship. Today's economic woes are a direct result of our energy policy over the past 18 years...make no mistake about it. We need a balanced approach not a one sided fear mongering global warming is going to kill us all approach. I hope the reasonable independent mindset sees through the extremist agenda. To force rapid change through hardship is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ....and unnecessary!
August 1, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Mass transit doesn't necessarily need to be defined as public infrastructure. There is definitely a need of some sort for "public domain," but if the entrepreneur is willing to pay rent for this and can still make ends meet, where is there a problem?
Also, the mining of the (lithium I believe) battery material lays waste to life for thousands of square acres around the epicenter. Not to mention, the price of refining the material into a useable product. By the time it makes it to the far east and back (where much of the creative process takes place), there is a huge chunk removed as far as what that battery is capable of saving in oil over its lifetime.
August 1, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Spencerr, I believe Russia has the largest coal reserves in the world. I could be wrong, but I think that's the case.
Also, what do you mean by "only" number two? What a stingy view of such a significant ranking! Are you trying to downplay that ranking so that you too can believe we're not "aggressive enough"? And that "liberal socialists" are the reason?
I just don't see how anyone could buy into the view that libs are holding us back from energy production when it's clear we are one of the top producers in the world.
The accusations are framed in the most absurd terms, and now you too are joining in with comments like we're "only" number two!
August 1, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Rosen has a Napolean little man complex.
August 1, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I never said liberal socialists are the reason. It might just be the environmentalist pawns of the socialists (the larger liberal group is made up of pacifist idealists, environmentalists, and socialists, the former two who I believe are pawns of the latter).
Anyway, we are one of the top producers in the world, but you conveniently ignore that we have not, in the last thirty years, done much to increase our production with respect to our population growth and fuel useage. No new oil refineries since the 1970s. No nuclear plants since the early eighties. A presidential ban on domestic oil exploration and new drilling since the first Bush's only term.
And for the most part, liberals have, using one method or another, made the cease in energy production relative to population growth and energy useage possible.
August 1, 2008
9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
Once again Chief Scientist Mike Rosen declares that global warming is a hoax, and it appears that his primary reason for doing so is that it conflicts with his political views. It's true that there are visionaries who are pushing for the transition to alternate energy faster than is practical or economical. This is always true of new technologies. It took many years before the airplane was a practical and economical mode of transportation, and some visionaries even claimed that everybody would be flying around in their own planes. Look at computers. In the 1950's, when a computer filled a large room, there were people predicting that everybody would have their own computer, but those people were ridiculed. Tracy's "two way wrist radio" was just fiction, and now we have I-Phones. The sooner we get busy developing alternative energy, the sooner it will become practical. Clearly that won't happen overnight. Stone Agers like Rosen should find a more appropriate profession, but all the gas stations are now self service.
August 1, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Bush II undercuts Bush I's executive order for no new domestic oil production and announces to the world that America is going to go get its oil, and oil falls twenty dollars a barrel (as speculators begin to flee). Liberals are the only opposition.
If McCain has a chance at beating Obama, I think it will because of the liberals steadfastness in refusing to actually do something to decrease the cost of American energy.
August 1, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Irisman, Rosen knows that he is not the authority on "manmande global warming" (snicker). However, he does rely on equally-scientific data that chalks global warming up to cycles. You saying that he thinks he is the "Chief Scientist" is the equivalent of you saying that you are because you have chosen science with one political agenda over science with a different agenda.
August 1, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Speaking of the Bushes, you do know that Jeb Bush was staunchly opposed to offshore drilling in Florida, right?
Fast-forward a hundred years from today. The world is either going to be breathing a huge sigh of relief that there were some people who fought continued environmental degradation of this planet, or they are going to be cursing us for selling our planet out.
August 1, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Fast forward a hundred years, and there are numerous possible scenarios; the world will probably be laughing at present-day environmentalists (just as we are laughing at global cooling doomsayers from the forties and fifties) because the other half of the cycle kicked in and the world started cooling off again.
You assume that simply because you have academia and the highly-biased (liberal) media on your side that you are correct and scientific discussions have ended. Fact is, there are many PhDs on Rosen's side too, and even some of the original proliferators of (what I believe to be) the myth that is global warming are not detracting. The founder of the weather channel is one such export. There is a climate PhD who specializes in hurricanes at CSU in the same boat. And one of the originators of "manmade global warming" has decided that there is key missing evidence that disproves the manmade global warming theory.
One side may get ignored, but it doesn't make that side's argument less viable.
August 1, 2008
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
sorry, now detracting, and "expert" not export.
August 1, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr: "And for the most part, liberals have, using one method or another, made the cease in energy production relative to population growth and energy useage possible."
For the most part? What about declining oil production because the lowest-hanging fruit has already been picked? Oil is increasingly expensive to extract because they have to drill deeper for it and in places where it is extremely difficult to extract.
For example, ANWR. It will be very hard to extract oil from there, which will certainly be reflected in price per barrel. Same with offshore drilling, the most expensive method of oil production.
So prices per barrel will continue to climb, demand will continue to climb, and in the meantime, we're putting highly sensitive areas at grave risk. Florida absolutely depends on it's tourism industry - one big enough spill could wipe it out for decades. And while ANWR isn't a tourist spot, it's not the wasteland you people espouse it to be. It's teeming with wildlife, and one of the few remaining true wildernesses in this world. And there are Native Indians who live near there, too. All of that would be changed forever, because it's not just the drilling area that would be effected. There are roads that will have to be built, too. In fact, there will be a huge infrastructure needed in addition to the drilling area.
August 1, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
mytwosense,,
I never alleged that the US was not a major producer of conventional energy sources. I argued that the Democrats are placing severe restrictions on additional development of conventional energy sources. There is no denying my assertion as Democrats continue to obstruct development of huge new reserves in ANWR, the OCS, and the Rocky Mountains. If you want to argue well, you need to address my actual points.
August 1, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
.1 percent of ANWR, not counting road infrastructure.
And now you are ignoring supply and demand again when you talk about prices (a few days ago, you were ignoring it in healthcare). Technology is so awesome now that spills from actual drilling are nill and costs of drilling relative to thirty years ago are down. Yes, more tankers means higher odds of a spill. There are more cars on the road, so I should stop driving because there is a greater chance that I will get killed.
While costs of production do define a starting point on the supply curve for oil (or anything else), supply and demand drive world prices. Do you deny that Democrats have been hindering supply (to their credit, they are also, less successfully, hindering demand)?
August 1, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
mmannino, your points were characterized to frame the US as lagging behind the rest of the world in energy production, and that the Democrats were to blame for this state of affairs.
And by the way, almost every country has energy restrictions and enforced environmental laws, with maybe the exception of China and Saudi Arabia. Would you like us to take their lead and remove all restrictions?
Because to remove all restrictions is a recipe for disaster, including severe environmental effects and risking the tourism industry in Florida.
Finally, the "huge new reserves" in ANWR would produce maybe a year's worth of oil for the US - and that's based on best-case scenario estimates - assuming it would only be placed on the domestic market. Which it wouldn't.
Your argument boils down to this: Democrats are responsible for high gas prices. And that's a silly argument meant to politicize a very serious issue facing this country which also further divides this country's citizens.
August 1, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
The myth of global warming debunked by science. These articles, while politically motivated, are based in fact and are as legitimate as the equally-politically motivated quasi-scientific garbage the media and academia have been feeding you since you had pig tails and put stickers on your trapper keeper.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginat...
August 1, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, first off, if you die in a car accident, that doesn't effect hundreds of thousands of other people, nor will it create an environmental catastrophe that wrecks hundreds of square miles surrounding your accident.
Also, your claim that spills are practically nil is just a flat-out untruth. Go to Google News and type in "oil spill." First story I got was about a spill that happened just last Wednesday.
And oil production costs are not "relatively down" from thirty years ago. Please, where are you getting this stuff???? The low-hanging fruit is gone, it's incredibly more expensive to drill now, and if it wasn't, that would be reflected in lower oil prices.
August 1, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
My two sense: Your "ANWR would only produce one-year's worth of oil" argument is nonsense. You assume that the ONLY source of oil for a year would be ANWR and that we could pull it out that fast. How silly stupid. In reality, that oil would be added to the world supply over the span of 20-40 years so that countries would be buying oil from us and thereby driving down worldwide costs of oil.
BTW - what environmental disasters are you forseeing. When Katrina went through the gulf, not a drop of oil was dropped into the Gulf of Mexico by our dozens of oil rigs there... What tourism pains? The wells would be at least 50 miles from the coast - more like 150 miles - and the visual horizon is only 13 miles at ground/sea level. Who would see the wells?
August 1, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, why should I believe your sources on global warming are credible, when you are also spouting false information about oil spills not happening anymore and that oil production is cheaper than ever?
If you're getting your information from similar sources, at this point, I'm honestly suspect of any claim you make!
August 1, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Oil is not more expensive to drill, if the land-use restrictions are lifted. The only barrier is law.
August 1, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Ted, I have no doubt that following environmental procedures increases some of the cost of drilling, but the cost of not following those procedures is even higher when severe damage occurs because of negligence.
But it's still more expensive to drill in areas where it is more complex to extract oil. Are you really going to insist it's not?
August 1, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Forget it. You are probably right, though in my defense you provided no references for your statement that oil drilling is more expensive. I will admit that processing tar, obviously a higher hanging fruit, is more expensive. ANWR, BTW, is low hanging fruit.
It is not important to my point or yours for that matter because price of world oil is determined by the world oil market, which is driven by supply and demand (again, cost is a starting point on the supply curve, not the equilibriam point of supply and demand). For instance, ten years ago, it was uneconomical to produce from oil tars in Canada because the world price of oil was lower than the cost to produce it. As the world price of oil increases, now it is viable to produce from tar. Cost doesn't drive the price, but price does have an effect on what is economically viable.
August 1, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Ted, my argument is not nonsense, because you people characterize ANWR as a source of oil that would considerably decrease prices. That's why your slogan is "Drill here, drill now, pay less!" It's a scam meant to fool people into thinking that ANWR will dramatically lower prices at the gas pump very soon.
Taken on it's own, ANWR would provide a year's worth of oil for the US. But as you just fully admitted, it wouldn't be put on the domestic markets. Rather, it would slowly be absorbed over several decades into a world market characterized by huge and ever-increasing demand. The price easing would be non-existent, especially considering the costs of developing the land for drilling.
Cheap oil is basically over, but you people want to continue to defraud the public into thinking it will be our cheap source of energy for decades, even hundreds of years to come.
It's a lie, .and a dangerous one that is going to end this country up ill-prepared, lose our position as the most economically powerful country in the world, and also royally screw over the next generations.
August 1, 2008
10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
The safety thing I heard on Rush's show several weeks or months ago, and I messed up by quoting it without googling it first.
August 1, 2008
11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
And yet, MTW, with just a hint in the air from president Bush that we are going to start producing more, oil falls.
Here are a couple of arguments for you MTW, and they are the ones the defeatist Left keeps using with regard to drilling;
"We should not do anything to increase oil production because it will take ten years at the earliest for the production to affect prices."
Using that logic for the last thirty years, we are where we are now with regard to oil prices because of the libs.
"The oil we produce goes into the world market, so it's of no use to drill."
Okay, using that logic, there is no reason to increase our domestically-produced oil supply despite increasing world demand. Put another way, world demand and world supply dictate the world market and thus price for oil. But somehow, increasing world supply won't do a lick of good.
August 1, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
mytwosense,
You are mischaracterizing my remarks. While it is true that other countries have restrictions on energy development, no other country has restrictions like ours. Our restrictions are outright bans. Democrats have forbidden energy development in locations with huge reserves. No other country has forbidden energy development in locations with huge reserves. Energy development can be done in these locations with minimal environmental impacts.
My argument is that the Democrats are purposely pursuing an elitist and immoral energy policy to withhold large amounts of conventional energy from world energy markets. The actions of the Democrats make OPEC look like a non player. OPEC tries to control supply by placing quotas on member country output. Over time, many countries have cheated on these quotas. The Democrats are simply refusing to allow large amounts from entering world markets and lowering prices.
August 1, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
MTW,
I quoted a bad source without further research. It was a mistake.
However, unlike you, I don't ignore supply and demand and basic economics in everything I argue. You have some points, one of which I just conceded to you. I concede my weaknesses. However, you do not concede yours.
You won't look at the sources I posted for you because I made a mistake.
Using your logic, I should just shut my ears and call you an idiot because you continue to erroneously ignore economics.
August 1, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, my point is that the "Drill here! Drill now! Pay less!" crowd is attempting to fool people into thinking any new drilling will have dramatic and immediate effects.
Also, how do you know that Bush's announcement is what caused oil prices to drop? And by the way, prices at the gas pump didn't drop that much, unless you're excited over a six or seven cents reduction.
Here's an article that gives some reasons, a whole bunch of them. Whether they're true or not, I have no idea. Hell, let's face it, none of us can decide if prices are truly dictated by real supply and demand, or psychological factors driven by a speculator-based market. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...
August 1, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
we'll go over it one more time, spencer jr.
please explain to us how supply and demand can explain this trend:
1992
$19/barrel
$1.05/gallon
2000
$23/barrel
$1.42/gallon
2008
$140+/barrel
$4+/gallon
August 1, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Ah, MTW, the reason that oil dropped twenty dollars a barrel is because speculators are perceiving the end of their roller coaster ascension and decided to drop their speculations.
It coincided directly with two events...above-mentioned Bush stuff, and Americans driving less. The demand side. You see, speculation is not independant of supply and demand, as it just reacted to both (or maybe just one or the other, point still stands).
Gas always follows oil quickly up but slowly back down. And we may not be out of the woods. And my gas bill this morning was about a buck less than usual. 52 bucks ain't nothin'.
August 1, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Actually, I did look at the link you provided - it appeared to be a rather amateurishly designed opinion site, with several fiery opinion pieces from a few scientists and others who consistently appear in the opposing side of the global warming debate. They are a very small minority group, not that this disqualifies their position, but the fact remains that far more scientists and reputable scientific agencies don't agree with them.
Also, spencerr, I've never really dived into the GW debate. I'm not a scientist, and some of the arguments are way too technical for me to absorb, much less attempt to expound upon with authority.
If I had to pick a side, I guess I don't see how so many tons of CO2 going up into the atmosphere every single day aren't trapping heat and reflecting it back to earth, causing some human-made warming.
And even if I didn't believe that, I certainly believe in pollution and that it can mess up our waters and the air we breathe. Fossil fuels do produce toxic carcinogens, and developing them does cause environmental damage. You're likely right that lithium mining for electric batteries does, too.
August 1, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
I don't think we should be focused on drill here, drill now, pay less now.
We should be focused on drill here, drill now, and in thirty years this problem won't be compounded by thirty years of inactivity.
August 1, 2008
11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay, you just flunked economics 101 and any other subject based in logic.
You gave me prices and years but nothing relating those prices to world supply and world demand.
August 1, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
unless you can show that demand increased by 500%...you're the one with the economic willful ignorance problem, spencer jr.
August 1, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr: "It coincided directly with two events...above-mentioned Bush stuff, and Americans driving less."
I thought the latter had a great deal to do with it, and I guess speculators did too, but then it turns out inventory supplies were actually shorter than expected. So the price hasn't continued to fall.
Don't you find it slightly disconcerting that the people in charge of pricing our energy, speculators, are basically bookies & fortune-tellers?
Yet another reason to work hard to move away from oil. It's a screwy system to use to run our energy-based economy, and I seriously doubt we're ever going to remove speculation from the equation.
August 1, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Oil is still down twenty dollars and continues to fluctuate between 120 and 125 (way below 145).
And my point is not that I don't want to get away from oil. My point is that I don't want to get away from oil via government intervention (subsidies as well as blocking drilling). You were right in your very first post when you said market is advancing.... It doesn't need help from government. With gas four dollars a gallon (as well as current government intervention), there are people moving madly to develop renewables. We don't need government forcing their preferences on us. We are getting there, and at a pretty good rate, from you own first post. Your way is the expensive way. Somehow green energy, which is vastly more expensive, is the answer to our energy woes. It will replace oil one day, but the technology is not there as far as being more economically viable.
August 1, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay, show me a "demand timeline" that demonstrates that demand has not risen by 500%, and I will concede that price is not primarily a function of supply and demand.
August 1, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, government tax incentives encourage people to invest in solar systems. The more people who do so, the more the market will expand.
Without government spending on infrastructure, autos and thus oil would NEVER have taken off. That kind of investment simply could not be paid for out of the private sector, or it would have been.
In addition to it's viability, the green energy sector presents a whole new addition to our economy. One critical reason why we need this is because, even if we drill in the places you want to, gas prices are only going to go up. Seriously, by 2010, we could be looking at five bucks a gallon or more, by 2015, maybe six, seven, even more.
If people can't pay for that, the economy is going to tank. We need a serious shot in the arm to fund the rising price of gas, and while some jobs would be created by new drilling, it would mainly be for jobs requiring oil drilling experts. Your average American citizen has never worked on an offshore drilling platform.
The market alone will take much, much longer to get affordable renewable energy technologies available to the public at large. We simply don't have that kind of time to waste.
August 1, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lol...spencer jr...not even rush could make the claim that global demand has increased by 500% since 2000.
nice try though.
can we quit with the supply and demand boogeyman stories?
supply and demand can't account for the skyrocketing fuel costs...and doesn't represent the fix you apparently believe it does either.
we need comprehensive energy reform that not only addresses domestic supply issues, but also the republican policies that have devalued the dollar and destabilized the middle east, as well as the unchecked speculation that is contributing to the problem.
August 1, 2008
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
MTW, I have already conceded that public goods (road infrastructure and military) necessitate public investment. That part of your argument doesn't hold because renewable energy is not a public good. I might listen a little more closely, if, say, we needed to build transformers and power lines to facilitate energy transportation, but to that end, energy is the car, and we didn't invest directly in cars.
Put another way, in your argument, energy and cars are the same. Government did not need to invest in cars to see them succeed. It needed to invest in the public good called road infrastructure. The public good relating to energy that would be a metaphor would be transformers and power lines.
August 1, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
jay, just admit it if you can't find a timeline for worldwide demand for oil. I'll understand.
August 1, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
Crude closed at $128.10 yesterday, not $140+
Get your facts straight before you post here.
August 1, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Hint jay, you can't find it because it does not exist. It would take a lot more calculation (using calculus and statistics) than I currently have at my disposal without doing a major research project.
August 1, 2008
12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, perhaps I didn't word my last post very clearly. I'm just assuming you can understand that if we at least reduce our oil dependency by, say, 20 or 30% because our homes are powered through solar, the savings alone there will help us absorb increasingly expensive costs to drive our cars.
You also completely miss the point that although the government didn't directly invest in cars, it invested in the infrastructure necessary for cars to be adopted on a mass level, and thus, for petroleum to really take off.
August 1, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Eli: "Jay,
Crude closed at $128.10 yesterday, not $140+. Get your facts straight before you post here."
Jay never said otherwise, so it's a bit premature for you to be giving him directives on how to post on this forum.
I think what Jay is getting at, although I could be wrong, is that it's not just a simple matter of supply and demand. Other factors have to be coming into play here, because gas has been at or near $4 a gallon, even when oil is at both $140 a barrel and $125 a barrel.
Although the price of gas is directly related to the price of oil, there are other effect factors, and they obviously fluctuate, too. Otherwise, we'd see a predictable percentage change in gas every time the price of oil itself changes.
August 1, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
MTW, in the sense you are talking about, the infrastructure needed for renewables to take off already exists. Its main problem is that it is in direct competition with something that is much cheaper (carbon). However, there will come a point when renewables can compete, and we eagerly await the day the markets make that happen.
And believe me, we want to see oil go away, but not artificially, at the hands of the government. The day that the Saudi Princes stop playing Scroog McDuck in a money bin that once belonged to America, I will be jumping up and down in the streets in extreme joy.
...it will happen one day, but it is a waste of taxpayer money to do it artificially.
August 1, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, I'm referring to government involvement with assisting our energy markets. That doesn't necessarily have to mean "infrastructure," I just use that particular example to show how government involvement assisted the oil and auto markets.
This is different. Government involvement here would be tax incentives to get solar in more homes. And yes, some infrastructure in terms of mass transit.
But you're stuck on that word "infrastructure," when the topic at hand is government assistance in speeding up the markets.
August 1, 2008
12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, then I guess in your book oil and automobiles got an "artificial" start.
You're clinging to some kind of purist vision here, for what sake I don't know, but it's a kind of thinking that seriously hinders progress in the renewable energy sector. Believe me, the market players WANT government financing and attractive tax incentives for their customers.
August 1, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
It's just money that could stay in taxpayers pockets (and investment) while the markets eventually found their own way toward renewable energy.
Anyway, no reply necessary. It is one of those irreconcilable points between someone who believes in government hands off and someone else who believes in government helping things along.
August 1, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Why not PRIVATE financing based on the profit-incentive, which would lead to the most efficient allocation of our economic resources. The market does a better job of managing risk than government. Financiers won't dump money into something if there is a better way of allocating that money (given that someone isn't pulling the wool over their eyes). All it takes for government investment in something is the right kind of politics and the right kind of friends (have you seen The Aviator...Juan Trip and the crooked Senator), and even if it is the right thing to do, how does government know how much to invest for the best, most efficient outcome...it doesn't.
That's why I am a purist market lover.
August 1, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr, there is private financing, in fact, there are a slew of angel investors currently involved in renewable energy. But that is solely focused on the supply side. The government is assisting mostly on the demand side, i.e., helping to expand the demand market. I'm not saying for every product out there this kind of arrangement is necessary, but it's been proven to work for launching the auto and petroleum industries.
August 1, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr: "how does government know how much to invest for the best, most efficient outcome"
Government isn't working in a vacuum. They often work closely with industry leaders and professionals, and in those cases, economic and technical experts on both sides work together.
August 1, 2008
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
When I can gain economically from putting solar on my roof or constructing a wind turbine in my backyard, I promise you, I will be the first in line.
Anyway, whether you subsidize the production or the consumption, it makes no difference. Subsidize the production, and the product is cheaper for the consumer. Subsidize consumption, and the product is cheaper for the consumer.
BTW, you know those HDTV antenna-converter commercials. Well, I got two coupons and bought the converter boxes. Twenty bucks for a one hundred dollar value. I bought them because I am taking from the system out of spite, not because I had any real need for them (though I have one of them ready to set up when the switch is made).
August 1, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Responding to your last post...how did that work for the Soviet Union?
August 1, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
spencerr: "Subsidize the production, and the product is cheaper for the consumer. Subsidize consumption, and the product is cheaper for the consumer."
I assume you agree this is a good thing, right?
spencerr: "Responding to your last post...how did that work for the Soviet Union?"
Don't really follow what you're saying here. Also, I have to go for the day. Taking my son to the library where he loves to crawl around in the kids section and get oohed and ahhed over by the librarians!
August 1, 2008
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Government control over the means for production. That is what I meant. Government can't do it more efficiently.
And no, I don't agree. I'm a purist market man. Why doesn't the government just take all of the money out of the economy and make all products free for the consumers?
Anyway, have fun with your son! Babies are...girl magnets. They are cute!
August 1, 2008
1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
stuckiniowa writes:
jay -- you are correct, demand for oil has not gone up 500%. It has however gone from 67,000,000 barrels per day to over 85,000,000 barrels per day (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t46.xls)
so there has been approximately a 25% increase in demand.
You have to consider that the cost of transporting the oil - goes up - as the price of fuel goes up, which goes up as the price of oil goes up. And the cycle continues.
Does it explain the entire increase in the cost of gas at the pump -- no. Does it explain a good chunk of it --- absolutely.
August 1, 2008
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
"Jay never said otherwise, so it's a bit premature for you to be giving him directives on how to post on this forum."
MTS, you have to know how to talk to jay in terms he understands. Condescending remarks like that are how he "debates", so I was just speaking his language. I wouldn't say something like that to any other poster on this website.
"I think what Jay is getting at, although I could be wrong, is that it's not just a simple matter of supply and demand."
Regardless, the fact remains that his numbers are wrong. He knows they're wrong, as he has been corrected on those numbers recently that he keeps posting. He does it anyway because he has no credibility.
August 1, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"so there has been approximately a 25% increase in demand."
bingo.
enough said.
eli...i know you're a little pissed that you just got your intellectual butt handed to you on the healthcare thread...but pouting about it isn't going to change the facts.
in 2008 oil went to 140+ a barrel and 4+ a gallon. there's no conspiracy at work...i just post that little beauty a lot and don't want to look up the "today" prices every time i do. would it make you feel better if i just post ~$125-145/barrel under the 2008 number?
there's nothing wrong with the data my little footsoldier....no one is lying....no one is "cheating". you just need to come to terms with the fact that you're either going to have to elevate your game or stop nipping at my heels like a little dog everytime i post something that is politically inconvenient for you.
August 1, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
spencer jr, i just don't see the need to wait until the invisible hand of the market pushes the industry towards alternative energy...particularly when you consider the additional costs in blood and treasure that accompany our dependence on foreign oil.
it just doesn't make fiscal sense.
as far as gov't funded r&d...why in the world would you want to dismantle the infrastructure (your word) that has successfully produced huge advances for the betterment of mankind for over 200 years?
that just doesn't make a lot of common sense either.
August 1, 2008
3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
Sorry, been hard at work and being productive and such.
twobitsense, world demand is going to go up anyway, why not provide additional supply to meet that demand?
What, do you think wind is going to accomplish that? When it needs a fossil-fuel plant running at 90% capacity to back it up?
Or is it solar? The two largest solar power plants in North America, which I now live close to, produce less power than that single-stack coal plant that I grew up next to in Hayden, CO. If we used every available spot in the US and turned it into Solar Power plants, we'd have less than 50% of the power we need today and it would cost $$$ trillions.
What then, nuclear? Where to put the waste? Yucca Mountain? or reprocess it! (This, BTW, is our best option.)
You fools on the left want to close your eyes and go nanananananananana and think that you have a solution; but, twobitsofsense hit the nail on the head. Demand is rising and will rise more and faster in the coming years.
The ONLY way we can meet that demand is to increase supplies. We can increase energy supplies through wind and solar, but those are extremely expensive and of little usefulness. Nuclear and drilling, immediately, are our best hopes for our future.
Now, about negligence. Which countries are most negligent? Where are most of the spills? Betcha it isn't the US!
August 1, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Ted_in_Vegas: "You fools on the left want to close your eyes and go nanananananananana and think that you have a solution."
We have many proposed solutions. Renewable energies, mass transit, telecommuting, four-day workweeks, other means of conservation...a whole host of working ideas already in practice by businesses and homeowners and municipalities around the world, that disprove your lies about their "usefulness."
It's the Pollute-and-Plunder crowd you hail from that keeps hitting the same stale notes over and over.
August 1, 2008
4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Now, about negligence. Which countries are most negligent? Where are most of the spills? Betcha it isn't the US!"
well....i'll take that bet. shall we say $10,000 in gold coins deliverable to the front desk at Morton's on the last day of next month?
to give you an idea...the US accounted for 55 incidents between 1995 and 2004...nearly four times as many as the country that was second on the list....sk with 15.
http://www.itopf.com/_assets/document...
August 1, 2008
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
"i know you're a little pissed that you just got your intellectual butt handed to you on the healthcare thread"
Jay, haven't you learned by now that simply declaring victory doesn't make it so?
Remember how assertions like this were explained to you before? I put it in very simple terms so you could wrap your small mind around it. Let's try again:
If I tell myself I can fly and then go jump off a building, I will go SPLAT when I hit the ground. This will happen no matter how many times I tell myself I can fly. I can do it over and over again for weeks, months, years even...and it still won't make it so.
The same thing applies when you resort to simply repeating assertions like this over and over. No matter how many times you do it, they won't come true. But you can keep on clicking those heels together if you want to, I guess.
"in 2008 oil went to 140+ a barrel and 4+ a gallon."
Yep, it sure did. That was the high point. So, if you chose the highest point in 1992 and 2000 too, your little list might be a little more relevant.
If you'd like to salvage some credibility, you could try posting something like this when talking about oil prices:
Average prices of crude according to inflationdata.com:
1992- $19.25/barrel
2000- $27.69/barrel
2008 (partial) - $97.98
Check out the info for yourself here:
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflatio...
Now that is a valid comparison. Instead, what you did was take an average for 1992, and a number from 2000 (not sure where you got your number there- since it differs from inflationdata.com I don't know if it's an average), and then you took the peak price in 2008.
Now THAT is intellectual dishonesty at it's finest. You're a hack, jay.
To be even more accurate, we should adjust those numbers for inflation. 1992 and 2000 average prices are listed in 1992 and 2000 dollars.
If we were to adjust for inflation, that $19.25 in 1992 turns into $29.47 in 2007 dollars. The $27.39 becomes $34.16 in 2007 dollars.
You're right, jay. There's nothing wrong with the data. There's something wrong with you and your lack of ability to post accurate data.
August 1, 2008
4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
you betcha...as i said...i'll just put the range of prices for 1992 2000 and 2008 from now on, eli...that way you won't have to pout about the numbers instead of trying to actually refute the point.
can we move on or do you want to whine about the fact that you can't refute my point on healthcare either?
August 1, 2008
4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
rosen once again couldn't get through the week without lying....
"Newsradio 850 KOA host Mike Rosen falsely claimed that "an investigation vindicated" former Colorado Secretary of State's office employee Dan Kopelman of allegations related to his having been doing "on the side" some "work for Republicans or something like that." In fact, the state auditor's report found that Kopelman's conduct "does appear to have violated state statute" in that he "owned and operated a partisan political business" while employed in the department's elections division."
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/item...
August 1, 2008
4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
See...these people lie on a regular basis. Why would anyone believe what they have to say about our energy policies?
August 1, 2008
7:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
spencerr and eli have said all I would have, thanks.
August 1, 2008
8:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
windskull writes:
spenccer I never said you were Jethro,I foolishly applied Pavlovian logic to the presumptive cyphering methodology that you might better get a handle on, my bad.
As with any sound venture over simplification is a recipe for disaster however for the moment lets view JUST the 33%/mo electric savings from the micro generation windmill
(which to answer that other question relating to homeowners association or neighbors sniveling, the biggest device I saw amounts to a 5 gallon bucket on it`s side mounted on an 8-12 ft high stake or a wall bracket no more obtrusive than a .dbs dish also they had an attic fan prototype whic