Tag Archives: energy

Environmentalists are a bit hyperbolic

Posted on by
Reply

The LA Times reports an amazing quote that is all too common from environmentalists. Here it is:

“Growing coal use threatens nothing less than the end of civilization as we know it,” said Henry Henderson, the Chicago-based Midwest director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.”

I’m sorry, there is no reason to believe that burning coal will end civilization as we know it. The worst case scenario is a hotter world with higher seas. That will not end civilization. What will end civilization as we know it is less energy. But that’s what exactly what environmentalists want.

Obama Energy Promises–Cheap Magic Energy for Everyone!

Posted on by
Reply

Barak Obama, and to only a slightly lesser extent, John McCain, are on the campaign trail promising cheap, magic energy for all. From the National Post:

Barack Obama on Tuesday vowed he would break America’s addiction to “dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive” oil if he is elected U.S. president — and one of his first targets might well be Canada’s oil sands.

A senior adviser to Mr. Obama’s campaign told reporters it’s an “open question” whether oil produced from northern Alberta’s oilsands fits with the Democratic candidate’s plan to shift the U.S. sharply away from consumption of carbon-intensive fossil fuels.

…

“The possibilities of renewable energy are limitless,” Mr. Obama said in an energy policy speech Tuesday in Las Vegas. “We’ve heard promises about it in every State of the Union [speech] for the last three decades. But each and every year, we become more, not less, addicted to oil — a 19th-century fossil fuel that is dirty, dwindling, and dangerously expensive.”

While it’s true that there is less oil today than yesterday, it is not dwindling. There are more oil resources in North America, in the form of oil sands and oil shale, than there is in Saudi Arabia. We also have vast supplies of oil and natural gas on the outer continental shelf, but Mr. Obama and his friends have fought to restrict access to those domestic resources. Unsurprisingly after years of constraining our supply, we now have tight supply and high prices. Thank you Mr. Obama. The policies you support are the very ones driving up the price of energy.

Oil might be dirtier than natural gas, but it is also less expensive for personal transportation. Does Obama not support personal transportation? Oil emits less greenhouse gases than current biofuel technology, so you can argue that it is cleaner than biofuel. And oil is cheaper than biofuel, allowing lower income people to afford to buy and use it.

In opposition to oil, but does Obama support?  Biofuel of course. Unsurprisingly the NY Times reports that Obama is in the pocket of Big Ethanol. If Obama were thoughtful, if Obama were for real change, he would be concerned about the outcomes of the policies he supports. Some people rightly call biofuel a “crime against humanity.” Others say that it is increasing poverty.

The possibilities of renewable energy, like the possibilities of absolutely anything are limitless. When I want to drive my car I don’t want it to be a mere possibility the the station will have gas. I want there to be a high probability the station will have gas.

Someday renewables might make sense, but today we are throwing money away and making people poorer as a result. When will Obama support real change and end this tragic waste?

Oh my goodness, McCain actually talks sense on energy

Posted on by
Reply

Today, John McCain actually called for lifting the federal moratorium on oil exploration and development on the outer continental shelf. This is a shock that McCain can be so reasonable. If he is going to call for more domestic energy, it makes sense to call for energy that exists instead of trying on future technologies to lower energy prices.

Obama on the other hand only spouts nonsense about energy.

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the Obama campaign said that Mr. McCain’s plan amounted to “the same misguided approach backed by President Bush that has failed our families for too long and only serves to benefit the big oil companies.”

Apparently there’s no problem with $4 a gallon gasoline and the American people should stop whining.

If McCain can protray Obama as being out of touch with the average American, McCain will win. Obama’s problem is that he and his handlers are apparently out of touch on energy issues.

Disinformation about Wind Power from T. Boone Pickens

Posted on by
Reply

When the media or wind adovcates talk about wind energy they write things like, “Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is sinking billions of dollars into a new wind farm in Texas. It is likely to become the biggest in the world, producing enough power for the equivalent of 1.3 million homes.”

Wrong, unless you only want your lights in those houses on 30% of the time. Wind cannot power the equivalent of 1.3 million homes because you can’t plan when the wind will blow with the degree of accuracy needed. As a result, when you build a 4 gigawatt wind energy plant, like Pickens wants to, you have to build at least 3.2 gigawatts of backup generation for the wind turbines. That backup power will most likely be natural gas, much of which will be imported.

Here’s more silliness:

Pickens: The Department of Energy came out with a study in April of ’07 that said we could generate 20 percent of our electricity from wind. And the wind power is — you know, it’s clean, it’s renewable. It’s — you know, it’s everything you want. And it’s a stable supply of energy.

Wrong. Wind is not everything you want because wind is not a stable supply of energy.  The truth about wind is this–you can only produce electricity from wind when the wind is blowing (and not blowing too hard). That’s about 30% of the time. Electricity that only works 30% of the time is not “everything you want.” As an investor seeking to scam Texas ratepayers–who will be forces to buy your expensive electricty it is everything you want, but as a consumer who wants the electricity to work whenever you flip a switch, it is not “everything you want.”

Pickens ends the story with this piece of nonsense, ” But we are going to have to do something different in America. You can’t keep paying out $600 billion a year for oil.” Uh, okay. But electricity and oil have very little to do with each other. Only about 2% of the electricity in the US is generated from petroleum. That’s it. 98% of the electricity in America does not come from petroleum, so talking about how we pay $600 billion a year for oil when talking about wind makes little sense (unless you are talking about electric cars, but that don’t current exist).

There could be some decent reasons to build wind but from all appearances T. Boone Pickens just wants to scam ratepayers. I may be cynical, but he hasn’t made a case that he understands the downsides to wind energy.

Democrats Like High Energy Prices

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrats are no serious about the price of oil or about increase the amount of domestically produced oil. They like to bring oil execs up to the Hill to excoriate them about high prices, but the Democrats and some enabling Republicans are actively blocking new energy sources. For example, the Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard’s attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado. From the Rocky Mountain News:

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.

“If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people’s lives,” Allard argued.

But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.

There is more oil in oil shale in the US than there is oil in Saudi Arabia–by a long shot. And the Democrats don’t want to allow access to it. One of the Bush Administration’s biggest flaws is not pushing harder to use domestic energy sources (other that biofuel).

Geothermal Energy Harms German City

Posted on by
Reply

Staufen, Germany has a problem. The city’s attempt to use environmentally-friendly geothermal energy is harming the city’s buildings. Two weeks ago, they drilled 460 feet down to extract heat from the earth. The problem is the drilling allowed water to seep out of an underground reservoir, causing the ground to subside. So far the earth has subsided 1/3 of an inch. That doesn’t sound like much, but it is causing cracks to appear in buildings.

This is another reminder, that green energy isn’t without its drawbacks. The drawbacks to ethanol are painfully clear now, but there are other disadvantages to other “green” forms of energy as well.

The message is, don’t mess with Mother Earth:

H/t to Mike Munger.