What's Wrong With Al Gore's Energy Proposals
Steven L.
Thank You, Al! [Marlo Lewis]
Al Gore’s call to produce all of America’s electricity from “carbon-free
sources” by 2018 flouts technological, economic, and political reality.
Let’s start with the politics. Congress has never been able to bring
itself to pass a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring
investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to obtain 10 percent of all the
electricity they sell from renewable sources like wind, solar, and
geothermal energy. So Gore proposes a 100-percent RPS applicable not
just to IOUs but also to rural cooperatives and municipality owned
utilities. Pie in the sky does not even begin to cover it.
The economics are even sillier. Maybe Gore is right that “enough solar
energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100
percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year,” and that “
enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also
meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand.” But that tells us nothing
about how economical — or uneconomical — it is to collect and harness
diffuse energies like wind and sunlight, or to transmit electricity from
solar collectors in, say, Phoenix, Ariz., to consumers in Buffalo, N.Y.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that under current
policies, which include numerous state-level RPS programs and a
multitude of federal and state subsidies and tax breaks, wind power will
grow from 0.6 percent of total generation in 2006 to 2.4 percent in
2030, geothermal will grow from 0.4 percent to 0.6 percent, and biomass
(both dedicated facilities and co-fired with coal) will grow from 1
percent to 3.2 percent. Solar power’s contribution is projected to
remain so miniscule by 2030 that EIA does not even assign a percentage.
See EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2008, p. 70.
In all, EIA projects that non-hydro renewable sources will supply only
6.8 percent of all U.S. electric power by 2030. One reason renewables
are nowhere near on track to meet Gore’s goal is that, “In general,
renewable energy is expected to remain more expensive than the
generation it would displace, that is, its avoided cost” [AEO08, p. 71].
More importantly, building a whole new electric supply system in ten
years would not only cost a bloody fortune, it would also require
scrapping hundreds of billions of dollars of capital assets long before
the end of their useful life. It is hard to imagine a more wasteful
misuse of public and private capital.
Even the Washington Post gets it: “Half the nation’s electricity comes
from coal plants, and most of them have expected operating lives beyond
10 years; replacing them would require massive capital investment and
throw scores of big energy firms into turmoil. Moreover, solar and wind
equipment manufacturers would be hard-pressed to supply enough wind
turbines and solar panels to meet Gore’s goals in a decade. Most major
wind-turbine makers already have backlogs of more than a year for
projects that will meet a relatively small portion of U.S. electricity
needs.”
Finally, Gore’s plan ignores the inherent limitations of wind and solar
power. Wind and solar are intermittent energy sources. Solar cells
generate electricity only when the sun shines. Wind turbines generate
electricity only when wind blows. Yet homes and businesses need electric
power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This is why wind and solar power
are unsuited to provide base load power. Even as supplemental peaking
power, their value is limited. In California, for example, peak demand
is greatest on hot summer days, but often times it is hot precisely
because the wind isn’t blowing.
[
Al Gore's own website estimates that his proposals would cost between
$1.5 TRILLION and $3.0 TRILLION dollars to implement. Basically we
would need to take apart the United States of America, scrap trillions
of dollars of existing infrastructure and real estate, and put it back
together again in a whole new way. And the restructured America would
*necessarily* be operating less efficiently than it is now, because the
government will have simply mandated hundreds of billions of dollars
worth of changes which the free market could never have chosen on its own.
T. Boone Pickens has just launched his own campaign to get America to
use alternative sources of energy. But he's smart enough to recognize
that wind and solar must *necessarily* have another source as a backup
for those days and nights when there isn't much sun or wind. (The
hottest days, the days on which air conditioning loads are at peak, are
often the days when the winds are becalmed.) He's chosen liquefied
natural gas (LNG) as his proposed backup--but environmentalists and
citizen activists hate it because of its safety problems. Al Gore
doesn't even recognize this is a problem.
]
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Bill Bonde { ''Soylent Diesel is People'')
"Steven L." wrote:
>
> Friday, July 18, 2008
>
> Thank You, Al! [Marlo Lewis]
>
> Al Gore’s call to produce all of America’s electricity from “carbon-free
> sources” by 2018 flouts technological, economic, and political reality.
>
This is similar to his long since forgotten demand that Americans
give up the internal combustion engine in about the same amount of
time. Gore is ridiculous, insane and/or certainly not serious.
--
"It happens sometimes, people just explode, natural causes."
-+Alex Cox, "Repo Man"
zzbu...@netscape.net
But, that's also why states where also put in the Constitution for
wanks like Gore.
Since that's also why he didn't invent Intenert, and other people
did.
And also lasers, masers, satellites, DVD+RW, USB, Microcomputers,
PV Cells,
GPS, fiber optics, Optical Computers, Cruise Missiles, E-Books,
Holograms,
and adaptive Robots, rather than just wank adpative A,I.
And the restructured America would
> *necessarily* be operating less efficiently than it is now, because the
> government will have simply mandated hundreds of billions of dollars
> worth of changes which the free market could never have chosen on its own.
>
> T. Boone Pickens has just launched his own campaign to get America to
> use alternative sources of energy. But he's smart enough to recognize
> that wind and solar must *necessarily* have another source as a backup
> for those days and nights when there isn't much sun or wind. (The
> hottest days, the days on which air conditioning loads are at peak, are
> often the days when the winds are becalmed.) He's chosen liquefied
> natural gas (LNG) as his proposed backup--but environmentalists and
> citizen activists hate it because of its safety problems. Al Gore
> doesn't even recognize this is a problem.
> ]
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
Well, since Gore is a wank politician, his energy policy is
obviously
"Faster, Better, Cheaper", just like NASA.
Whereas people who understand policy energy usually have the
jingo:
'Non-photon, Delta, Let a wank die for the party".
> > ]
>
> > --
> > Steven L.
> > Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> > Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
zzbu...@netscape.net
But, he's not smart enough to recognize that "America" only needs
that backup
because the idiot "griid" is run by China and Wal-Mart, not
America.
Which is why the preferred backup is still AI, PV Cells, and
Cruise Missiles, rather than LNG.
(The
> hottest days, the days on which air conditioning loads are at peak, are
> often the days when the winds are becalmed.) He's chosen liquefied
> natural gas (LNG) as his proposed backup--but environmentalists and
> citizen activists hate it because of its safety problems. Al Gore
> doesn't even recognize this is a problem.
> ]
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Mr. Jimbo
> Al Gore?s call to produce all of America?s electricity from ?carbon-free
> sources? by 2018 flouts technological, economic, and political reality.
>
Everything is wrong with Al Gore's energy proposals because global warming is
a big hoax that has suckered in all the world's leading governments, the top
100 multinational corporations and every single scientific body in every
place but Toenail Alabama.
It's people like me who know reality and can tell that it's a big conspiracy.
What we need is cheap oil and more of it.
MuttonJeff
You can forget anymore drilling/exploration for at least another 4
years. The liberals are determined to completely tear down the long
traditions and way of life of the american people because they think
they're smart enough to make socialism work. The left is still
seething with rage since the republicans took control of congress in
96' and Bush beat Gore in 2000. They've been chomping at the bit to
get a socialist/marxist in the Whitehouse with a liberal kook
controlled congress. They're poised to launched their long awaited
campaign of destroying america and rebuilding it the way they think it
should've been done when the Clinton(s) were in power.
Bush Lover
> You can forget anymore drilling/exploration for at least another 4
> years. The liberals are determined to completely tear down the long
> traditions and way of life of the american people because they think
> they're smart enough to make socialism work. The left is still
> seething with rage since the republicans took control of congress in
> 96' and Bush beat Gore in 2000. They've been chomping at the bit to
> get a socialist/marxist in the Whitehouse with a liberal kook
> controlled congress. They're poised to launched their long awaited
> campaign of destroying america and rebuilding it the way they think it
> should've been done when the Clinton(s) were in power.
>
Supreme Court and the Oval Office for 7 years, they were helpless against the
iron fisted will of Liberalism and didn't drill a single inch. It's amazing
how much the incumbent Republicans feared the almighty liberals.
That's why Liberals are to blame for all of our problems. It's time that
they were held accountable.
Rush says that blaming liberals is the solution for all of our problems.
MuttonJeff
Wrong. Rush says we should get rid of all liberals except for one. We
need to keep at least one around just to remind ourselves why they
were wiped out.
Force 55
to more Limbaugh and watched more Fox News, you would change.
See you in Church.
Steven L.
>
> "Steven L." wrote:
>> Friday, July 18, 2008
>>
>> Thank You, Al! [Marlo Lewis]
>>
>> Al Gore’s call to produce all of America’s electricity from “carbon-free
>> sources” by 2018 flouts technological, economic, and political reality.
>>
> This is similar to his long since forgotten demand that Americans
> give up the internal combustion engine in about the same amount of
> time. Gore is ridiculous, insane and/or certainly not serious.
Al Gore has forgotten what it really means to be an effective visionary:
You have to be willing to eat your own lunch, not just recommend it to
others.
Thomas Edison sweated to invent the phonograph and light bulb in his own
laboratory.
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak sweated to build a personal computer in
their own home.
What Al Gore does, is go around the world preaching why others should
live by his rules. But as far as I can tell, Mr. Gore has never
personally designed anything, invented anything, or built anything that
might help contribute to the solution. He just talks and talks, and
writes books.
That type of visionary makes a great media splash--for a couple of
years--and is then forgotten. Been there, done that:
Charles Reich: The Greening of America (whatever happened to
"Consciousness III")?
Alvin Toffler: Future Shock (whatever happened to that anyway?)
Robert Prechter: The Crest of the Tidal Wave (that was supposed to have
"crested" in 1997, 11 years ago)
Notice something? The visionaries that we remember tend to be
scientists and engineers: Edison, Einstein, Jobs and Wozniak. The
visionaries that we soon forget tend to be politicians and sociologists:
Reich, Toffler, Prechter--and Al Gore.
leona...@gmail.com
>
> Thank You, Al! [Marlo Lewis]
>
> Al Gore’s call to produce all of America’s electricity from “carbon-free
> sources” by 2018 flouts technological, economic, and political reality.
>
> Let’s start with the politics. Congress has never been able to bring
> itself to pass a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring
> investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to obtain 10 percent of all the
> electricity they sell from renewable sources like wind, solar, and
> geothermal energy. So Gore proposes a 100-percent RPS applicable not
> just to IOUs but also to rural cooperatives and municipality owned
> utilities. Pie in the sky does not even begin to cover it.
>
•• What is wrong with Algore's "energy proposals"??
EVERY THING!!!!!!!
Tartarus
> F Gore’s plan ignores the inherent limitations of wind and solar
> power. Wind and solar are intermittent energy sources. Solar cells
> generate electricity only when the sun shines. Wind turbines generate
> electricity only when wind blows.
Oil generates power only when you can get it. What do you do when it
runs out or you can't afford it anymore? There will always be wind and
sun. Might as well tap into that while we can afford the energy cost
(fossil fuel) to build the infrastructure we will need. In the not too
distant future, it may well cost too much to build wind and solar
farms because of $300 a barrel oil.
Tartarus
lorad
> Friday, July 18, 2008
>
> Thank You, Al! [Marlo Lewis]
>
> Al Gore’s call to produce all of America’s electricity from “carbon-free
> sources” by 2018 flouts technological, economic, and political reality.
> energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100
> percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year,” and that “
> enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also
> meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand.” But that tells us nothing
> about how economical — or uneconomical — it is to collect and harness
> diffuse energies like wind and sunlight, or to transmit electricity from
> solar collectors in, say, Phoenix, Ariz., to consumers in Buffalo, N.Y.
Those are good goals..
Removes the US's dependence upon foreign sources for our energy.
Got a better solution?
Let's hear it.
Eat the rich
provide the impetus to force our government to come up with a
nationalized solution. Within twenty years, because of the ever
increasing difficulty of extracting oil, the price of oil will be
crippling to our economy.
It's time that we stop arguing with those who are too short sighted
and too partisan to see what's coming. Those of us who can see what
lies ahead, must focus our efforts on our representatives and leave
the fools who claim oil is only energy source to fight amongst
themselves. There will always be people who are unable to see beyond
today and no amount of logic and reason will sway them. Look at the
posters here. No matter how much information from experts is
presented that shows that oil will only become more expensive and
harder to obtain, there are still those who argue against finding
other sources of energy. When you meet a lunatic on the street who
yells that the world is flat, do you waste your time trying to
convince that person otherwise?
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
Bush Lover wrote:
>
> MuttonJeff <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You can forget anymore drilling/exploration for at least another 4
> > years. The liberals are determined to completely tear down the long
> > traditions and way of life of the american people because they think
> > they're smart enough to make socialism work. The left is still
> > seething with rage since the republicans took control of congress in
> > 96' and Bush beat Gore in 2000. They've been chomping at the bit to
> > get a socialist/marxist in the Whitehouse with a liberal kook
> > controlled congress. They're poised to launched their long awaited
> > campaign of destroying america and rebuilding it the way they think it
> > should've been done when the Clinton(s) were in power.
> >
> That's true. Even when the Republicans controlled Congress, the Senate, the
> Supreme Court and the Oval Office for 7 years, they were helpless against the
> iron fisted will of Liberalism and didn't drill a single inch. It's amazing
> how much the incumbent Republicans feared the almighty liberals.
>
Could the Republicans pass legislation without the approval of at
least some Democrats? No.
Jeffrey Turner
> Friday, July 18, 2008
>
> Thank You, Al! [Marlo Lewis]
>
> Al Gore’s call to produce all of America’s electricity from “carbon-free
> sources” by 2018 flouts technological, economic, and political reality.
Gosh, so did the space program. But the space program didn't have
opponents who made money off NOT going into space. There are plenty of
oil company profiteers who like things just fine with you paying $4+ for
gasoline.
> Let’s start with the politics. Congress has never been able to bring
> itself to pass a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring
> investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to obtain 10 percent of all the
> electricity they sell from renewable sources like wind, solar, and
> geothermal energy. So Gore proposes a 100-percent RPS applicable not
> just to IOUs but also to rural cooperatives and municipality owned
> utilities. Pie in the sky does not even begin to cover it.
Yeah, well, it's time to get Congress working for us and not for the
oil companies.
> The economics are even sillier. Maybe Gore is right that “enough solar
> energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100
> percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year,” and that “
> enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also
> meet 100 percent of U.S. electricity demand.” But that tells us nothing
> about how economical — or uneconomical — it is to collect and harness
> diffuse energies like wind and sunlight, or to transmit electricity from
> solar collectors in, say, Phoenix, Ariz., to consumers in Buffalo, N.Y.
How economical is it to keep sending dollars to Dubai?
> The Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that under current
> policies, which include numerous state-level RPS programs and a
> multitude of federal and state subsidies and tax breaks, wind power will
> grow from 0.6 percent of total generation in 2006 to 2.4 percent in
> 2030, geothermal will grow from 0.4 percent to 0.6 percent, and biomass
> (both dedicated facilities and co-fired with coal) will grow from 1
> percent to 3.2 percent. Solar power’s contribution is projected to
> remain so miniscule by 2030 that EIA does not even assign a percentage.
> See EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2008, p. 70.
Obviously we need new policies.
> In all, EIA projects that non-hydro renewable sources will supply only
> 6.8 percent of all U.S. electric power by 2030. One reason renewables
> are nowhere near on track to meet Gore’s goal is that, “In general,
> renewable energy is expected to remain more expensive than the
> generation it would displace, that is, its avoided cost” [AEO08, p. 71].
But it's better to spend the money here than send it to Dubai. And
costs will come down as economies of scale come into play.
> More importantly, building a whole new electric supply system in ten
> years would not only cost a bloody fortune, it would also require
> scrapping hundreds of billions of dollars of capital assets long before
> the end of their useful life. It is hard to imagine a more wasteful
> misuse of public and private capital.
Whine a little more, why don't you?
> Even the Washington Post gets it: “Half the nation’s electricity comes
> from coal plants, and most of them have expected operating lives beyond
> 10 years; replacing them would require massive capital investment and
> throw scores of big energy firms into turmoil. Moreover, solar and wind
> equipment manufacturers would be hard-pressed to supply enough wind
> turbines and solar panels to meet Gore’s goals in a decade. Most major
> wind-turbine makers already have backlogs of more than a year for
> projects that will meet a relatively small portion of U.S. electricity
> needs.”
The big energy firms have thrown our economy and ecology into enough
turmoil, they could use a little turnabout. And the new rules would
bring a lot of new capital and, therefor, capacity to the solar and
wind equipment manufacturers. This guy doesn't seem to get the idea.
> Finally, Gore’s plan ignores the inherent limitations of wind and solar
> power. Wind and solar are intermittent energy sources. Solar cells
> generate electricity only when the sun shines. Wind turbines generate
> electricity only when wind blows. Yet homes and businesses need electric
> power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This is why wind and solar power
> are unsuited to provide base load power. Even as supplemental peaking
> power, their value is limited. In California, for example, peak demand
> is greatest on hot summer days, but often times it is hot precisely
> because the wind isn’t blowing.
The sun is shining. The tides are moving. And we'll come up with
energy storage systems. Oh, and people may have to turn down their
air conditioners. Maybe everyone could take the day off if it's too
uncomfortable at the office. Now wouldn't that be horrible! I'll bet
the writer never takes a day off.
> http://tinyurl.com/5b42hb
>
> [
> Al Gore's own website estimates that his proposals would cost between
> $1.5 TRILLION and $3.0 TRILLION dollars to implement. Basically we
> would need to take apart the United States of America, scrap trillions
> of dollars of existing infrastructure and real estate, and put it back
> together again in a whole new way.
Sort of like trading in a Model T for a Maserati. The economy would be
humming and we'd have technology for export that would turn around our
trade deficit in a hurry. Sounds good. And $3 trillion is less than
the total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Better to spend the
money on a well thought out policy.
> And the restructured America would
> *necessarily* be operating less efficiently than it is now, because the
> government will have simply mandated hundreds of billions of dollars
> worth of changes which the free market could never have chosen on its own.
Sort of like the interstate highway system, the railroads and the
internet. We wouldn't even be having this discussion - and all the
other modern advances - without that "inefficient" gov't spending.
> T. Boone Pickens has just launched his own campaign to get America to
> use alternative sources of energy. But he's smart enough to recognize
> that wind and solar must *necessarily* have another source as a backup
> for those days and nights when there isn't much sun or wind. (The
> hottest days, the days on which air conditioning loads are at peak, are
> often the days when the winds are becalmed.) He's chosen liquefied
> natural gas (LNG) as his proposed backup--but environmentalists and
> citizen activists hate it because of its safety problems. Al Gore
> doesn't even recognize this is a problem.
And the hottest days are the days with the brightest sunshine. And we
would need a better grid. And tidal energy. Maybe put a bunch of
turbines in the Gulf Stream, now there's a steady source of energy.
Lots of energy. LNG indeed.
--Jeff
--
The struggle with evil by means of violence
is the same as an attempt to stop a cloud,
in order that there may be no rain. -Leo Tolstoy
Steven L.
The Republicans could have passed energy legislation on a number of
issues, such as improving the nation's electric power transmission grid;
raising fuel economy standards; etc. They had the votes to break any
Democrat filibuster on those topics. What the Democrats kept
filibustering was the GOP's insistence on including provisions to drill
in ANWR and other environmentally sensitive areas, as part of any energy
package. Those were the sticking points that were causing the gridlock.
And when it came to raising fuel economy standards, for years the
congressional GOP actually sided with Democrat representatives from
Michigan (the home of the auto makers), like John Dingell, to block any
such standards.
Notice that when Bush finally punted on ANWR, and when even Nancy Pelosi
got fed up with John Dingell and faced him down, Bush finally got some
kind of energy package through Congress in 2005.
Werner
... Look at the
> posters here. No matter how much information from experts is
> presented that shows that oil will only become more expensive and
> harder to obtain, there are still those who argue against finding
> other sources of energy. When you meet a lunatic on the street who
> yells that the world is flat, do you waste your time trying to
> convince that person otherwise?
Who argues against finding energy? There are some who argue that some
energy ideas are not as useful as others.
The reason oil is becoming more expensive has more to do with us
becoming poorer than oil becoming harder to obtain. Peak oil has
existed in Somalia since the beginning because the Somalis can't
afford to buy oil not because oil was expensive.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Bill Bonde { ''Soylent Diesel is People'') wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Steven L." wrote:
> >> Friday, July 18, 2008
>
> >> Thank You, Al! [Marlo Lewis]
>
> >> Al Gore’s call to produce all of America’s electricity from “carbon-free
> >> sources” by 2018 flouts technological, economic, and political reality.
>
> > This is similar to his long since forgotten demand that Americans
> > give up the internal combustion engine in about the same amount of
> > time. Gore is ridiculous, insane and/or certainly not serious.
>
> Al Gore has forgotten what it really means to be an effective visionary:
> You have to be willing to eat your own lunch, not just recommend it to
> others.
>
> Thomas Edison sweated to invent the phonograph and light bulb in his own
> laboratory.
Well, but what Edison didn't know about inventing is that it has
nothing to do with *Politics and Sweat*.
Which is why post 1860 inventors invented Neon Lights, Biolume,
Digital, Lasers, Masers,
Electronic Computers, Ebooks, PV Cells, Robots, Fiber Optics
Satellites, CD,
Surround Sound, DVD+RW, HDTV, AC-DC Batteries, GPS, Artificial
Intelligence,
Cruise Missiles, and USB, rather than doing as dumb as buying a
lab in New Jersey.
>
> Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak sweated to build a personal computer in
> their own home.
>
> What Al Gore does, is go around the world preaching why others should
> live by his rules. But as far as I can tell, Mr. Gore has never
> personally designed anything, invented anything, or built anything that
> might help contribute to the solution. He just talks and talks, and
> writes books.
>
> That type of visionary makes a great media splash--for a couple of
> years--and is then forgotten. Been there, done that:
>
> Charles Reich: The Greening of America (whatever happened to
> "Consciousness III")?
>
> Alvin Toffler: Future Shock (whatever happened to that anyway?)
>
> Robert Prechter: The Crest of the Tidal Wave (that was supposed to have
> "crested" in 1997, 11 years ago)
>
> Notice something? The visionaries that we remember tend to be
> scientists and engineers: Edison, Einstein, Jobs and Wozniak. The
> visionaries that we soon forget tend to be politicians and sociologists:
> Reich, Toffler, Prechter--and Al Gore.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Werner
....
>
> Yeah, well, it's time to get Congress working for us and not for the
> oil companies.
>
Really? How? Will Congress decree universal fuel care?
...
....
>
> Sort of like the interstate highway system, the railroads and the
> internet. We wouldn't even be having this discussion - and all the
> other modern advances - without that "inefficient" gov't spending.
>
Actually, sort of like $9+Trillion in federal debt and many many
Trillions more to come. More than can be taxed or borrowed. That's why
the dollar is dropping and the price of oil (and other stuff) is
rising.
Oil Prices Up, Dollar Down - Coincidence?
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/11/b258795.html
Vicious cycle: Rising oil prices, falling dollar
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P100650.asp
Oil Prices and the US Dollar
http://www.networkideas.org/news/mar2008/Oil_Prices.pdf
We don't have a supply problem in oil. There is no Peak Oil. We have
Peak Wealth. Big governments are very expensive to operate. You either
have to tax, borrow or print money to pay for free lunches. Now it
seems printing is necessary. That is why the price of gasoline is so
high. We pay with cheaper dollars and compete for oil with countries
that have growing wealth.
Conservation is necessary. But we need to conserve on government
spending. Instead they want more binge spending on universal health
care which will break the bank even faster.
Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
of others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
----
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
...
Jeffrey Turner
> On Jul 19, 5:50 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> ....
>
>>Yeah, well, it's time to get Congress working for us and not for the
>>oil companies.
>
> Really? How? Will Congress decree universal fuel care?
There's all sorts of things Congress can do, if they stop working for
the oil companies.
>>Sort of like the interstate highway system, the railroads and the
>>internet. We wouldn't even be having this discussion - and all the
>>other modern advances - without that "inefficient" gov't spending.
>
> Actually, sort of like $9+Trillion in federal debt and many many
> Trillions more to come. More than can be taxed or borrowed. That's why
> the dollar is dropping and the price of oil (and other stuff) is
> rising.
Yeah, well, that's what happens when you give huge tax cuts to the
wealthy.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> [
> Al Gore's own website estimates that his proposals would cost between
> $1.5 TRILLION and $3.0 TRILLION dollars to implement. Basically we
> would need to take apart the United States of America, scrap trillions
> of dollars of existing infrastructure and real estate, and put it back
> together again in a whole new way. And the restructured America would
> *necessarily* be operating less efficiently than it is now, because the
> government will have simply mandated hundreds of billions of dollars
> worth of changes which the free market could never have chosen on its own.
Has anyone calculated the cost of coastal regions being inundated by
rising sea levels? I suspect it dwarfs $3 trillion.
Steve
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>Steven L. wrote:
>>
>> [
>> Al Gore's own website estimates that his proposals would cost between
>> $1.5 TRILLION and $3.0 TRILLION dollars to implement. Basically we
>> would need to take apart the United States of America, scrap trillions
>> of dollars of existing infrastructure and real estate, and put it back
>> together again in a whole new way. And the restructured America would
>> *necessarily* be operating less efficiently than it is now, because the
>> government will have simply mandated hundreds of billions of dollars
>> worth of changes which the free market could never have chosen on its own.
>
>Has anyone calculated the cost of coastal regions being inundated by
>rising sea levels? I suspect it dwarfs $3 trillion.
>
>--Jeff
Not to mention the cost of the sky falling....
Werner
> Werner wrote:
...
>
> > Actually, sort of like $9+Trillion in federal debt and many many
> > Trillions more to come. More than can be taxed or borrowed. That's why
> > the dollar is dropping and the price of oil (and other stuff) is
> > rising.
>
> Yeah, well, that's what happens when you give huge tax cuts to the
> wealthy.
>
> --
and huge entitlement spending for everyone else.
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
"Steven L." wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'') wrote:
> >
> > Bush Lover wrote:
> >> MuttonJeff <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> You can forget anymore drilling/exploration for at least another 4
> >>> years. The liberals are determined to completely tear down the long
> >>> traditions and way of life of the american people because they think
> >>> they're smart enough to make socialism work. The left is still
> >>> seething with rage since the republicans took control of congress in
> >>> 96' and Bush beat Gore in 2000. They've been chomping at the bit to
> >>> get a socialist/marxist in the Whitehouse with a liberal kook
> >>> controlled congress. They're poised to launched their long awaited
> >>> campaign of destroying america and rebuilding it the way they think it
> >>> should've been done when the Clinton(s) were in power.
> >>>
> >> That's true. Even when the Republicans controlled Congress, the Senate, the
> >> Supreme Court and the Oval Office for 7 years, they were helpless against the
> >> iron fisted will of Liberalism and didn't drill a single inch. It's amazing
> >> how much the incumbent Republicans feared the almighty liberals.
> >>
> > Could the Republicans pass legislation without the approval of at
> > least some Democrats? No.
>
> The Republicans could have passed energy legislation on a number of
> issues, such as improving the nation's electric power transmission grid;
> raising fuel economy standards; etc. They had the votes to break any
> Democrat filibuster on those topics.
>
Only because some Democrats would support going forward.
> What the Democrats kept
> filibustering was the GOP's insistence on including provisions to drill
> in ANWR and other environmentally sensitive areas, as part of any energy
> package. Those were the sticking points that were causing the gridlock.
>
But drilling offshore, for example, is vital to getting more energy
produced domestically.
> And when it came to raising fuel economy standards, for years the
> congressional GOP actually sided with Democrat representatives from
> Michigan (the home of the auto makers), like John Dingell, to block any
> such standards.
>
> Notice that when Bush finally punted on ANWR, and when even Nancy Pelosi
> got fed up with John Dingell and faced him down, Bush finally got some
> kind of energy package through Congress in 2005.
>
I don't see any HVDC grid of grid lines being set up.
V for Vendicar
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote
> What is wrong with Algore's "energy proposals"?? EVERY THING!!!!!!!
I guess that is why Oil Giant T. Boone Pickens - Referring to Al Gore as
the Patton of our time - is calling
for Al Gore to be AmeriKKKa's Energy Czar.
*us*
Jeffrey Turner
Do you think Exxon will give you a price break on domestic energy?
>>And when it came to raising fuel economy standards, for years the
>>congressional GOP actually sided with Democrat representatives from
>>Michigan (the home of the auto makers), like John Dingell, to block any
>>such standards.
>>
>>Notice that when Bush finally punted on ANWR, and when even Nancy Pelosi
>>got fed up with John Dingell and faced him down, Bush finally got some
>>kind of energy package through Congress in 2005.
>
> I don't see any HVDC grid of grid lines being set up.
Maybe you should talk to "the market."
Bill Bonde { ''Mr Gore, tear down this wall'')
I think Exxon will sell oil products at market prices. I didn't ask
for a price break. But more domestic production, means less
importation and a smaller balance of trade imbalance.
> >>And when it came to raising fuel economy standards, for years the
> >>congressional GOP actually sided with Democrat representatives from
> >>Michigan (the home of the auto makers), like John Dingell, to block any
> >>such standards.
> >>
> >>Notice that when Bush finally punted on ANWR, and when even Nancy Pelosi
> >>got fed up with John Dingell and faced him down, Bush finally got some
> >>kind of energy package through Congress in 2005.
> >
> > I don't see any HVDC grid of grid lines being set up.
>
> Maybe you should talk to "the market."
>
I'm not sure that the grid is market based.
Eat the rich
We're becoming poorer and China and India are becoming richer.
Jeffrey Turner
> Not to mention the cost of the sky falling....
Yeah, imagine thinking that as the oceans heat up, the water will expand
and the water level will rise.
Steve
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:02:22 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>> <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steven L. wrote:
>>>
>>>>[
>>>>Al Gore's own website estimates that his proposals would cost between
>>>>$1.5 TRILLION and $3.0 TRILLION dollars to implement. Basically we
>>>>would need to take apart the United States of America, scrap trillions
>>>>of dollars of existing infrastructure and real estate, and put it back
>>>>together again in a whole new way. And the restructured America would
>>>>*necessarily* be operating less efficiently than it is now, because the
>>>>government will have simply mandated hundreds of billions of dollars
>>>>worth of changes which the free market could never have chosen on its own.
>>>
>>>Has anyone calculated the cost of coastal regions being inundated by
>>>rising sea levels? I suspect it dwarfs $3 trillion.
>>
>> Not to mention the cost of the sky falling....
>
>Yeah, imagine thinking that as the oceans heat up, the water will expand
>and the water level will rise.
>
>--Jeff
Oh yeah, and then mebbe the sun will stop shining too, and then we'll
all have to put headlights on our boats...
Dennis
"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:UcSdnUJGhdBNPhvV...@posted.localnet...
> Steve wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:02:22 -0400, Jeffrey Turner
>> <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steven L. wrote:
>>>
>>>>[
>>>>Al Gore's own website estimates that his proposals would cost between
>>>>$1.5 TRILLION and $3.0 TRILLION dollars to implement. Basically we
>>>>would need to take apart the United States of America, scrap trillions
>>>>of dollars of existing infrastructure and real estate, and put it back
>>>>together again in a whole new way. And the restructured America would
>>>>*necessarily* be operating less efficiently than it is now, because the
>>>>government will have simply mandated hundreds of billions of dollars
>>>>worth of changes which the free market could never have chosen on its
>>>>own.
>>>
>>>Has anyone calculated the cost of coastal regions being inundated by
>>>rising sea levels? I suspect it dwarfs $3 trillion.
>>
>> Not to mention the cost of the sky falling....
>
> Yeah, imagine thinking that as the oceans heat up, the water will expand
> and the water level will rise.
>
> --Jeff
Now that's funny, but he'll never get the joke. Good one, subtle.
Dionysus
Jeffrey Turner
> Oh yeah, and then mebbe the sun will stop shining too, and then we'll
> all have to put headlights on our boats...
Are you naturally stupid or do you work at it?
Steve
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
<LOL> that's from the loon that just suggested that "the oceans heat
up, the water will expand and the water level will rise," and "
coastal regions [will be] inundated"
zzbu...@netscape.net
<Execute_The_Traitor_In_The_White_Ho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote
Well, that's a reasonible comparison.
Since Patton's idiots ideas about energy are why Cruise Missiles
were invented.
And Gore's idiot ideas about politics are why satellites were
invented.