Maybe next year.
H/T, Hot Air: Video: Dems won’t act even at $10 per gallon
H/T, Doug Ross @ Journal: Gasoline: the real price gougers
Like OPEC, the United States Senate wants oil prices to stay high! Accordingly, supply in the United States will not be increased, even if oil reaches $10 per gallon, per Senator Ken Salazar (D) of Colorado.
That makes the United States Senate worse for Americans than OPEC. OPEC recently increased oil production when the price of oil hit $120 per barrel, corresponding to gasoline prices around $4 per gallon.
We can’t do much to change the composition of OPEC’s governors. But we surely can do something about the United States Senate. We can, and must elect senators and congresspersons who will permit Americans to maintain and increase energy supplies, including oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy.
The present Senate and Congress is far out of touch with America’s needs, and out of touch with climate reality which portends a great risk of much colder weather in the next few years. We can do without air conditioners in many cases during the summer, but we cannot do without heat during the winter.
Mother nature dumps 63 times more oil into the ocean than does drilling and extraction, through natural seepage. The Santa Barbara channel seepage is not exceptional, apparently. Seepage of oil into the ocean and U.S. coastal waters is widespread, even typical.
See “Mother Nature, the biggest oil polluter on Earth”
Some documentation here: CRS REport for Congress, Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters
The time to switch to solar energy, or to wind power, not only is not today; it may be never. The alternatives to oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy so often cited as if they are silver bullets in the battle to prevent imaginary global warming simply are not economically viable, on any scale.
In this abortive Massachussetts attempt (below) to prevent imaginary global warming, 19 turbines produced only 27% of planned energy. Other turbines produced only 17% and 15% of planned output, according to the Massachussetts Technology Collaborative.
On the other hand, if T. Boon Pickens wants to build us a half-trillion dollar transmission system, he should get started. But he doesn’t, because he knows it cannot pay.
The practical and proven solution is build more nuclear plants, drill more oil and more natural gas. Convert coal to gas; then make hydrogen fuel. But we better do it quickly. We have no guarantee that Earth is not about to cool off by more than 5 degrees Farenheit; in fact, the climate gives every indication of doing exactly that.
. . . according to the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, the agency that oversees the state’s major alternative energy rebate programs, the small wind initiative was canceled because the turbines it has funded are producing far less energy than originally estimated.
An MTC-sponsored study released earlier this summer found that the average energy production of 19 small turbines reviewed was only 27 percent of what the installers had projected. The actual production for the 19 turbines, which received nearly $600,000 in public funding, ranged between 2 and 59 percent of the estimates.
A $75,663 turbine at Falmouth Academy that received $47,500 in state money, for example, has produced only 17 percent of the projected energy in the year since its installation. Another, smaller device in Bourne is producing only 15 percent of the originally estimated energy.
The MTC blamed the underperformance generally on inaccurate information provided by manufacturers and poor siting of the turbines, as well as inaccurate wind speed estimates and inefficiencies in wiring and other equipment.
The MTC grants are generally considered to be critical to the financial viability of wind turbines and other alternative energy projects.
Megan Amsler, executive director of the Falmouth-based Cape and Islands Self-Reliance Corporation, who spoke out against roof-mounted wind turbines before the Mashpee Planning Board, said the cause of the underperformance of many of the devices is self-evident. If the blades are not high enough above nearby obstructions, preferably at least 30 feet above the tallest object within a 500 foot radius, the wind becomes muddled and the turbines will not work, she said. The higher the turbine, the better it will perform, she said.
She said roof-mounted turbines are not high enough to be effective.
She pointed to a study by a British firm that found that some turbines in poorly sited locations are producing so little electricity that the energy draw of the electricity inverter, which changes the direct current electricity generated by the turbines into alternating current usable by homes and businesses, is greater than the energy captured by the turbine.
We are losing a very important war: the progressive War on Energy!
Learn to get along with no energy. There will be no more oil drilled, no more nuclear plants, not even any new coal-fired electricity plants. Transportation must be unaffordable; to save the Earth. Harry Reid says carbon dioxide has made us all sick! Your nation will be changed, into a hovel, or maybe an anthill. You were too rich, you had too much energy and too many machines. You need to change. Do it quick. The Earth is getting sick (or is it getting cold?). Government subsidized energy, from photovoltaics and wind turbines will be available sporadically at respectable distances from the homes of progressive senators and congresspersons.
Environmentalists and “progressives” nationwide will seize this court decision as an opportunity to cut off another arm and leg of your energy. $4 gasoline and $5 diesel is only the start.
Environmental groups are battling coal-fired power projects because of concerns about so-called greenhouse gases linked to global warming. Houston-based Dynegy, owner of electricity plants in 12 U.S. states, and closely held LS of East Brunswick, N.J., have a joint venture that may develop coal-fueled plants in at least six states, including Georgia and Texas.
About 20 percent of the Georgia plant’s cost, or $400 million, would be for equipment to control pollution, Michael Vogt, Longleaf’s project manager, said in a November opinion article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He also said Georgia’s water supplies wouldn’t be jeopardized by the project.
Read here: This is “the first time a court has applied the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision to carbon dioxide from an industrial source.”
We can drill our way out of this. We got into this by not drilling. If we keep not drilling, we will get only further into it.
If we are NOT DRILLING more oil when Iran attacks Israel as it promises to do, we will have less oil than if we are drilling more oil. Is this clear? In point of fact, we will always have more oil if we drill for it than if we don’t, ALWAYS. No matter what the premise. No matter what happens in the Middle-east, or Nigeria, or Venezuela, or Mexico. If you want a helpless, defenseless, moribund America, make us more dependent on foreign oil and foreign powers by not drilling; you are already having a smashing success.
“We can’t drill our way out of this” is practically an oxymoron (upon prolonged reconsideration, it is absolutely an oxymoron). There is every way in which drilling can get us out of this; and there is no way in which drilling more oil cannot get us out of it, because “it” is having less oil.
Speculators will sell oil rapidly when they are convinced we will drill. Same for gasoline.
Stop forcing speculators to buy oil by assuring them we will not drill! If you don’t like speculators bidding up oil, you have only to convince them we will drill for it. They will sell it by the gigaton. They will run away from it like the plague.
Yes we can drill our way out of this. If we can do anything at all, we can drill our way out of this.
Or maybe you prefer Americans do without energy? Without Energy Life Is Brutal and Short. You think America should revert (progress) back to the village? Is that what you mean when you say “Yes, we can revert back to the village?”