More Energy For You?



Maybe next year.

The Democratic “poison pill” on drilling


Worse Than OPEC

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.

Palin On Energy – June 2008

In case you haven’t seen/heard her yet, this was on Glenn Beck – from start of June, 2008 (Hang in there; Governor Palin at 4:22):

Breath of fresh air! Maybe gasoline won’t cost $20/gallon in 2010 after all!

Oil Works, Wind Turbines Don’t

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.

Oil in ocean - a natural phenomonon

Oil in ocean - a natural phenomonon

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.

No rebate, no wind turbines on rooftops at Commons (H/T: Tom Nelson)

. . . 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.

National Energy Plan Chokes

Our climate-alarmist government demonstrates astute management of energy, and of your tax dollars, below. When the premise (global warming) of every consideration is false, you are bound to cause some real damage.

The REAL, IMPORTANT CONCERN of government? Your gasoline could get too cheap! U.S. government studies (energy efficient studies) show it! They sure took care of that possibility.

“Lost in the debate over the fuel’s contribution to food scarcity is the possibility that the ethanol policy itself isn’t working, said David Just, an associate professor of economics at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. It may stimulate demand by making gas cheaper, he said, an argument supported by at least two U.S. government studies. (emphasis added)”

These buffoons have the audacity and the arrogance to blame “big oil” for expensive gasoline?

They would fix everything by nationalizing energy?

If we weren’t trapped in a nightmare of government utterly beyond control, this would be funny.

H/T: Greenie Watch

Ethanol Vehicles for Post Office Burn More Gas, Get Fewer Miles News Item
By Peter Robison, Alan Ohnsman and Alan Bjerga

May 21 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Postal Service purchased more than 30,000 ethanol-capable trucks and minivans from 1999 to 2005, making it the biggest American buyer of alternative-fuel vehicles. Gasoline consumption jumped by more than 1.5 million gallons as a result.

The trucks, derived from Ford Motor Co.’s Explorer sport- utility vehicle, had bigger engines than Jeeps from the former Chrysler Corp. they replaced. A Postal Service study found the new vehicles got as much as 29 percent fewer miles to the gallon. Mail carriers used the corn-based fuel in just 1,000 of them because there weren’t enough places to buy it.

“You’re getting fewer miles per gallon, and it’s costing us more,” Walt O’Tormey, the Postal Service’s Washington-based vice president of engineering, said in an interview. The agency may buy electric vehicles instead, he said.

The experience shows how the U.S. push for crop-based fuels, already contributing to the highest rate of food inflation in 17 years, may not be achieving its goal of reducing gasoline consumption. Lawmakers are seeking caps on the use of biofuels after last year’s 40 percent jump in world food prices, calling the U.S. policy flawed.

“Using food for fuel has created some unintended consequences: food shortages, the high price of livestock feed,” said Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican. “I think it’s leading a lot of people to wonder whether our corn-based ethanol goals need to be adjusted.”

Stimulating Demand

Lost in the debate over the fuel’s contribution to food scarcity is the possibility that the ethanol policy itself isn’t working, said David Just, an associate professor of economics at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. It may stimulate demand by making gas cheaper, he said, an argument supported by at least two U.S. government studies.

The Postal Service bought the ethanol vehicles to meet alternative-fuel requirements. The vehicles’ size and ethanol’s lower energy content lowered mileage, the agency said. It takes 1.33 gallons of E85 (85 percent ethanol) and 1.03 gallons of E10 (10 percent ethanol) to travel the same distance as with one gallon of pure gasoline, the Department of Energy says.

The Energy Independence and Security Act, passed in December, called for ethanol production to more than double to 15 billion gallons in 2015 from 6.5 billion last year. The U.S. pays oil refiners like Exxon Mobil Corp. 51 cents in tax refunds for each gallon of ethanol they blend into regular gasoline. Automakers get extra credit toward federal fuel-efficiency standards for models that can run on ethanol.

No Federal Requirement

No federal law requires that oil companies make the fuel widely available or that vehicles actually burn it.

About 1,560 of 180,000 U.S. gas stations, or fewer than one in 100, sell E85, according to Ford and the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition in Jefferson City, Missouri. E85 accounted for 1 percent of ethanol sold in 2006. The rest was blended into regular gasoline at lower concentrations, the Energy Information Administrationsays.

“Whether it was intended this way or not, the U.S. policy helps gasoline companies,” said Cornell’s Just. He and colleague Harry de Gorter estimated in a February paper that the credit may increase gasoline consumption by 628 million gallons to 156.6 billion gallons by 2015, compared with 155.9 billion without it.

Findings `Questionable’

“The findings of these professors are questionable,” said Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, a nonprofit group in Washington representing ethanol producers including Archer Daniels Midland Co. of Decatur, Illinois. The Energy Department’s estimates show that ethanol will contribute to a reduction in U.S. petroleum demand in 2008, he said.

A limited number of stations selling ethanol and the scarcity of vehicles burning it diminish the fuel’s appeal, according to a June 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office, the research arm of Congress. Three of the 26 ethanol- capable vehicles offered in 2007 were compact or mid-size cars, and the rest were large autos, pickups, SUVs or vans.

The big vehicles help automakers meet fuel-economy standards. General Motors Corp.’s “dual-fuel” 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe SUV was rated at 33.8 miles per gallon for city-highway driving, while a gasoline-burning model was at 20.5 mpg. A study by three government agencies in March 2002 found that the U.S. would consume 17 million gallons of additional gasoline through 2008 if the flex-fuel vehicles ran on E85 1 percent of the time.

“Not only does this credit do nothing to improve fuel efficiency,” said Daniel Becker, an environmental lawyer and former head of Sierra Club’s global-warming program. “It’s also ensuring that we’re going to use more gasoline.”

Spurring Sales

Federal credits over time will spur more stations to sell ethanol, said Greg Martin, a spokesman for Detroit-based GM. The three largest U.S. carmakers pledged to make half their vehicles capable of using alternative fuels by 2012.

“There is a caveat: providing that the infrastructure and the proper incentives are in place,” said Jennifer Moore, a spokeswoman for Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford.

As for the Postal Service, the agency delayed a $4 billion investment in as many as 150,000 delivery vehicles until around 2015, O’Tormey said. Until then, it will experiment with Ford Escape hybrid-electric SUVs, an Azure Dynamics Corp. electric vehicle and a GM hydrogen fuel-cell model, to be introduced in Los Angeles in July, he said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Peter Robison in Seattle at; Alan Ohnsman in Los Angeles at; Alan Bjerga in Washington at

Last Updated: May 21, 2008 00:01 EDT


Progress Back to the Village

What does it matter if the Al Gore Minimum extends, producing Maunder-like frigidity around the world? Progress back to the village will continue unabated. The stranglehold, the spector, of invisible anthropogenic global warming, materializing mysteriously someday in the future, is firmly in place.

The energy to keep you warm, transport your food and goods, or light your home won’t be available. As we’ve seen, development of additional energy resources is prohibited. Construction of new coal-fired plants is not approved, as a rule. Nuclear energy is blocked in the United States. Undefined “change” designed to re-habitate you into a primitive village is gathering momentum. Hydrocarbon fuels are practically banned, already, with the stampede to implement caps and trade global carbon tyranny. Human economic activity is to be cut off at the ankles, to mitigate imaginary anthropogenic global warming; a phenomenon which has never been observed outside of a rigged-up computer model. You are a few years at most from a grass hut; and the hut isn’t in the balmy South Pacific. Pollution from factories will be a thing of the past; as will the factories. Production of meat food will cease. With your handy solar cell array, you can choose to operate a light bulb, or a global warming climate model on your legacy PC, when there is bright sun. For dinner, you can have your choice of acorns or whatever you can grow in a three month season. Disease due to serious dietary constriction, in a climate requiring higher caloric intake will be widespread. You won’t need a refrigerator, nine months of the year. When you do need a refrigerator, your power source won’t suffice to operate one.

Finally, agrarian reform will be accomplished. Humans will all be exactly equal and pathetically miserable. This is called “progress.” The dark ages will come again, with a vengeance.

The true winner of the cold war may be emerging. With the assistance of massive public carbon hysteria, induced by prodigious distortion of data, facts and reality, capitalism will finally be overcome Al Gore and his team of jet-setting kommissars will partition whatever wealth and whatever energy remains, so as to keep Earth healthy according to their definition. The dictatorship of the proletariat will be the order of the day (the proletariat always turns out to be a few elites).

The alternative is to truly understand the pathetically small impact of carbon dioxide on global climate, which has been clearly demonstrated over the last 100 years, not to mention the entire “history” of the Earth. Carbon dioxide is not a toxin. While practical direct solar conversion technology does not exist yet (even when there is solution to the storage problem, solar cells only produce energy about one-third of the day), the means to produce energy cleanly from hydrocarbons very much does exist, and is widely practiced – but not everywhere. We must anticipate coming cool periods and have the energy available to negotiate them with minimal human tragedy.

Those forcing progress back to the village must be stopped; we are near the real tipping point. The exact timing seems to depend on the Sun! Our information on the Sun is inadequate now. The Earth isn’t getting sick; humans may well be.

Dems: No More Oil

Oil, thou shalt not have.

This from Democrats, who also blame “Big Oil” for not drilling enough.

Democrats, Greenies, and Closet Collectivist Republicans: If you BLOCK “Big Oil” from drilling, than you shall not have much oil.

What could be simpler?

You shall have solar cells in Arizona (and Arizonans say you can have ’em).


(The Bakken formation, in North Dakota, has as much recoverable oil as all of Saudi Arabia; I don’t believe it is included in the either outdated or deliberately understated “estimates,” below).

(Cal Thomas’s title is utterly inane; otherwise it would appear here).

. . In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here is the main problem: According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent.

According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America — 112 billion barrels — to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn’t, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains “off-limits,” we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil. .