Bush wins another one for his buddies in the oil Industry

Nukular power.

 

That quote on wind power can't include installation cost and the cost to connect to the existing power grid through transmission lines. They need to amortize those costs over their operational and maintenance costs, as well. You can't just look at the O&M costs and assume that it's a better deal than coal. Another problem with wind is that you can't accurately plan for when the wind is going to blow, which makes it difficult to coordinate the power coming onto the transmission grid, which is a delicate balance. Windy parts of the US tend to be remote places like in West Texas, which would necessitate gigantic capital requirements to connect the windmills to the transmission grid.

I wish we could find renewable sources to power the country's electricity needs, but I don't think wind is the answer. I'm more in favor of clean coal solutions.

 

All of this assumes no increase in reservoir recovery rates. With the new technologies in place AND with the inherent conservatism in the government's forecasts, the potential for finding much much more than we expect is very high. This is exactly what happened with Prudhoe Bay.

 

Well, the article places benefits of creating new wind plants over the creation of new coal plants (Clean coal?). All new entries would have to factor in costs connecting to the grid. Most areas of studies have been to place wind towers in rural agrarian areas to fit local needs and reduce connection costs.

Besides, while there were concerns about the costs of sending a pipeline from Alaska to the Continental US, it was done. We have massive construction projects from Alaska to California to provide our water needs. If it's essential to our national security. It gets done.

Anyways, there's been proposals to use kinetic flywheels in order to store power generated at night when demand isn't high and using it during peak day hours when consumption taxes the system. It's not far off to spin off that proposal to have a steady rate of energy production from a centralized plant. At the moment, I'm too lazy to provide a link on flywheel development. It is an interesting read if you're willing.

I understand that most of the current transmission infrastructure is geared towards current energy needs. Our 50 yr old transmission systems need an overhaul. A lot of the power on our current grid is lost during transit. We have the tech to improve energy efficiency and to accomodate new technologies.

 

OK, texxx, please put down that receptacle. Jorge, listen up. Robbie, pay attention. Fatty - uh, you, uh, Fatty just keep doing what you're doing and ignore this

According to the latest figures I could find from the DOE, the estimated impact of ANWR drilling on oil prices is estimated to be under 50 cents a barrel. Wow!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

That is HUGE. In related news, crude oil went up $1.41 today to 56.46. If only we had, like 3 ANWR's operating simultaneously, this tragic price increase would have never happened.

Can somebody tranlate this to gas prices please? I'm expecting a whopping few cents on the gallon. HELLO SAVINGS!!!!!!!

I for one can't WAIT to start spending my extra cents. I've got my eye on a Subway value meal WITH a cookie AND chips.

 

Again Sam, these figures are based on very conservative estimates. If Prudhoe Bay is any indication, we will find much more oil than previously expected once we start drilling. The bottom line is that this creates jobs for Americans (you seemed to be in favor of this during the election cycle), it reduces the price of oil, it decreases foreign dependency, and it increases tax revenues. If you isolate any oil field, the numbers will look small. As such, your analysis is ridiculous. This has the potential to be the largest domestic oil field. Oh by the way, it also has vast amounts of natural gas -- another widely used commodity that ripples through the entire economy. You haven't even touched on those benefits.

So Sam, give us your position.

Would you rather have more jobs, more tax revenues, a lesser dependency on foreign oil, and lower oil and gas prices?

or

Would you rather protect the mating habits of porcupine caribou?

The choice is simple. Heck, the choice is made. This is happening. Your position fell. Hard.

 

Sam, you seem to be a competent researcher. As you further prove your worth in this field, I may entrust you with more and more responsibility and more meaningful tasks. Now get back to your document review duties.

 

Bush campaign contributors get what they paid for, and Bush voters get to answer some very pointed questions from their grandchildren about why the country is in the toilet, and how they helped put it there.

Have fun.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

Yup, exactly. We are killing our grandchildren's future.

The original pipeline has been an ecological success. Period. If they can build a new pipeline through the most desolate part of the U.S., then by all means, do it.

I'd loved to have seen y'alls arguments a century ago about Rail.

This will improve the Nation's economy. To what degree is irrelevant. Pipeline's have done no irreparable damage to the environment, whatsoever.

If y'all are worried about oil spills, there's never been a major spill in a pipeline before.



And Sammy; you just like looking at your words in print, don't you?

 

Why can't you do both (reduce the cost of oil and find alternate fuels)?

 

That's what I think too.

 

Great insights, mc mark and lil pun. I can tell you've thought through your positions over long periods of time.

 

Yeah. If you think the Dems have problems with drilling in Alaska, wait until people start asking to build nuclear reactors all over the place.

I think we need to devlop some tidal based generator that is efficient, but I am not sure how practical that is, or if the environuts will allow power plants up and down the coastlines. We need to take advantage of the 100% limitless energy that nature provides.

Neither of those preclude us from taking advantage of the consumable resources that we have. If we can exploit those resources with minimal impact (and apparently we can) there is no reason not to.

Anyway, haven't you been watching 24?

 

Just because I post a straight-to-the-point answer about what I think doesn't mean I haven't thought it out smarty. I guess you want me to post an essay style answer to please you, eh? Sorry but I will say this:

Oil may drop but I don't think it will ever fall to the prices they used to be, not even this time last year when it was going for a measly $37 a barrel. I think it is going to stay hovering around the $50 range for a while, hell the warmer months are coming up, which is typically the highest price period for oil, so all it is going to do for the next 6-8 months is rise, if it does anything at all. I think there is a slim chance for it to fall. What needs to happen for it to fall? OPEC needs to raise output, things need to get stabilized in Iraq so the oil supplies from that country can be fully utilized, the oil that everybody thinks is in Alaska actually needs to be there, other oil sources must be found, and the further development of alternative fuel supplies. Even if all this happens the demand for oil is constantly increasing and the way it's looking with the other things I mentioned I'll take my chances with oil staying around where it is before I ever bet on it falling too much.

 

If there was a genuine concern to do both, we wouldn't be facing the prospect of 3 dollar prices (in California) throughout the entire summer. Possibly 2.80/gallon in Texas. The possibility of trying to do both was raised in the early 90s, yet domestic consumption and emissions have increased since then. Efficiency should've offset growth, but SUVs are profitable and popular.

We're running on the same known oil reserves. The only difference between now and then is that the Chinese are demanding more. Proposals like shale oil extraction or deep sea drilling is only prolonging the inevitable. None of that seems to convince people that we have to change now instead of procrastinating the day before it really hurts.

 

I've always felt the ANWR issue was a big distraction in the whole energy debate. While in general I would prefer not to drill in ANWR from what I've been seeing of drilling technology I don't think its going to be that big of a deal.

OTOH drilling in ANWR isn't going to do much at all for our current energy situation. Any oil out of there will go into the global oil market and won't be enough to influence oil prices over the long run which will still be driven by OPEC. So while it might make a dent that will be pretty small compared to what happens in the Middle East, Venezuala and other places.

In the end ANWR is only barely delaying the inevitable end of easy available oil, which according to some has already come. While those who support this are crowing now sooner or later we will run out of oil and we better start thinking now of moving towards other sources before we hit a real crunch. Or at least we better be thinking how to stretch it as much as we can.

This is one thing why I've never understood why economic conservatives outside of Paul Weyreich haven't embraced energy conservation. Doesn't it make sense to start investing in conservation and renewables now to cut down on energy costs over the longterm?

Apparently some are more interested in scoring political points sticking it to the liberals than thinking about longterm economic consequences of relying upon an inevitably diminishing resource.

 

can't you power cars with hemp? Andymoon, know anything about this?