September 26, 2008
Okay; it's tough, but this is the one I'm voting for. Vote here; vote now; pay less!
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
August 09, 2008
America owes a debt of gratitude to T. Boone Pickens for stepping forward to sound the alarm over this national emergency. This is all the more true, since as an oilman, Pickens could simply have followed the model of others in the business and just sat tight, enjoying record profits while the country goes under. Instead, he chose to act as a patriot.So hats off to Mr. Pickens. That said, the plan he is advancing for dealing with the crisis — build windmills to release natural gas from electricity generation so it can be used to power compressed natural gas (CNG)-driven cars, displacing gasoline in the process — is technically flawed and needs to be revised.
Continues stud/god Zubrin:
The total known reserves of natural gas in all of North America are 274 trillion cubic feet. And while new reserves are always being discovered, launching a heroic effort to shift our transportation system to critical dependence upon a fuel whose known domestic reserves amount to little more than ten yearsÂ’ supply is simply not prudent.Finally, compressed natural gas is an inferior technology for vehicle fuel. This is so because it is a gas, not a liquid, and so must be stored in heavy high-pressure tanks. A standard steel K-bottle compressed gas cylinder, which weighs about 133 lbs, can only store enough natural gas to match the energy content of two gallons of gasoline. So CNG cars are either limited to short range, or must carry massive tank systems that increase their cost and reduce their mileage. Lighter graphite composite tanks are possible, but these are very expensive and unsafe in the event of a crash, as they are susceptible to breakage followed by gas release and explosion.
So the Pickens plan, as written, won’t work. Fortunately, however, there is a way to modify it so that it can. The key is for Congress to pass a bill, such as the current Open Fuel Standards Act (S.3303, HR.6559) requiring that all new cars sold in the U.S. be fully flex-fueled — that is, capable of running equally well on gasoline, ethanol, and methanol. Such technology is currently available and only adds about $100 to the cost of a car (in contrast to CNG capability, which adds about $2,000). The reason why establishing a full flex-fuel standard is the answer is that methanol — a very safe and practical liquid vehicle fuel — can be made from a vast array of feedstocks, including not only natural gas, but also coal, recycled urban trash, and any kind of biomass without exception.
So if a bold wind or nuclear energy initiative can in fact free up enough natural gas to make a difference to the vehicle fuel market, flex-fuel cars can readily make use of it in a much safer and more practical form as methanol. But if not, then we — and the rest of the world (since an American flex-fuel requirement would effectively make flex-fuel the international standard, as all foreign car makers would need to switch their lines over to conform to it) — would also be able to make our fuel from a wide array of alternative resources. Indeed, we have enough known coal reserves for hundreds of years’ worth of supply, and enough crop residues available globally that, converted into methanol, could replace all the oil of OPEC. The key is not to pick one particular fuel resource, but to open the fuel market to all comers. Setting a flex-fuel vehicle standard is the quickest and most efficient way to achieve that goal.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:13 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 4 kb.
July 31, 2008
As a matter of fact, if I wanted to fetch some olive oil from my pantry tonight, I wouldn't really be able to sauté anything with it until 2018. At the earliest.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:44 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.
July 28, 2008
No; I do not think that drilling on the OCS is the most important part of the set of solutions we need to deploy against our energy problems; after all, the East Coast and the West Coast have less provable oil than ANWR does; only the Gulf is competitive with ANWR in its longterm potential.
But showing that America is serious about developing its own domestic alternatives is one of the actions we can take that will help in the short- and medium-term. (Along with increased use of methanol and ethanol, the mandating of flex-fuel technology in all vehicles, even for hybrids, and a handful of other measures, including increased use of natural gas, clean-burning coal, wind farms, and more nuclear reactors.)
Back to the WaPo:
WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? There's a serious debate to be had over whether Congress should lift the ban on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf that has been in place since 1981. Unfortunately, you won't be hearing it in the House of Representatives -- certainly, you won't find lawmakers voting on it -- anytime soon.Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor. Why not? "What the president would like to do is to have validation for his failed policy," she said yesterday when asked that very question. "What we're saying is, 'Exhaust other remedies, Mr. President.' . . . It is the economic life of America's families, and to suggest that drilling offshore is going to make a difference to them paycheck to paycheck now is a frivolous contention. The president has even admitted that. So what we're saying is, 'What can we do that is constructive?' "
If there is an explanation buried in there about why that makes offshore drilling off-limits for a vote, we missed it. Ms. Pelosi is correct that drilling is no panacea for the nation's energy woes. The short-term effect of lifting the moratorium, if there were any, would be minimal. That doesn't mean the country shouldn't consider expanded drilling as one of many alternatives. There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of such drilling -- environmental concerns that, we would note, exist in other regions whose oil Americans are perfectly happy to consume. But have technological improvements made such drilling less risky? Why not have that debate?
When they took the majority, House Democrats proclaimed that "bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives." Why not on drilling?
Meanwhile, the dispute has snarled progress on spending bills for fear of having drilling amendments attached. Citing "the uncertainty in how the oil and gas drilling issue is currently playing out on the Senate floor," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) called off committee consideration of spending bills on which Republicans were threatening to offer drilling amendments. The result threatens to be the first time since at least 1950 that lawmakers will go home for the August recess without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill.
Have the vote, Pelosi. It's called "Democracy," and it is (as Martha would say) A Good Thing. Just ask Leonard Cohen
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:51 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.
July 18, 2008
Aside from the prospect of expanding domestic oil supplies, the new production would help alleviate worries about the viability of the Alaska pipeline system.The pipeline is transporting 700,000 barrels of oil daily, down from 2.1 million when the Prudhoe Bay fields were at peak production in 1988. If the amount of oil in the pipeline falls too low in the bitter Arctic climate, it is no longer able to flow south to the tankers that take it to California for processing.
Once more, an Ed Morrissey analysis is in order:
Oil prices have tumbled the last two days since Bush lifted the executive order. The price on a barrel of oil fell more than $10, the largest such reduction in almost 20 years. Analysts in the media claim that the prices have fallen due to “demand destruction” and the fears of a long economic slowdown in the US, in which less energy will get expended. However, that doesn’t take into account the rising demand from China and India, which is expected to grow — and so a lack of American demand doesn’t make a lot of sense as the reason for the sharp drop. The markets may have begun to factor in more American production — and more moves to open resources in the US could add to the momentum.
It's almost as if good news is reassuring to the markets or something. Weird.
(Cross-posted at Right Wing News.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:10 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.
July 03, 2008
Here's How the American Solutions is promoting the idea (and I'll have some more thoughts later; this is simply a Public Service Announcement):
Thank you for joining more than 1.2 million of your fellow Americans in signing the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition.Congress has heard the message loud and clear, but many Members of Congress are still not listening to the will of the American people. This is why we need your help to declare this July 4th Energy Independence Day!
This week, Congress is on recess for the Fourth of July and will return to Washington, DC on July 7. During their 10-day recess, Members of Congress will be holding townhall meetings, attending parades, and talking with their constituents in their districts.
We encourage you to attend any one of these meetings to ask your Member of Congress if they support the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition. If possible, bring a video camera along to capture their answer. If you're unable to attend these meetings, be sure to either call or write your Congressman's office instead.
Here are a few more steps you can take to make this July 4th Energy Independence Day [and the entire month Energy Indepence Month!—Ed.]:
• Tell five friends about the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition;
• Call your local talk radio show about your Representative's position on the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition;
• Write a letter to the editor about your Representative's position on the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition;
• Download and print our handout to distribute at your townhall meeting or parade;
• You can find a new YouTube video, sample talking points, letter to the editor, and other action-oriented materials to guide you here.
This list is by no means exhaustive. In addition to getting your Representative on record, we encourage you to create your own activities surrounding Energy Independence Day. Your Fourth of July parties, BBQs, and neighborhood gatherings would be great opportunities to talk to your friends and family about the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition, and ask them to sign it.
Finally, after Energy Independence Day, email us your stories, photos, or videos to drillnow@americansolutions.com so we can highlight all of your hard work.
With your help, this Independence Day we will declare our energy independence. And we give our elected officials this choice:
Either take action to drill here and drill now for American oil or the American people will take action this fall!
Thanks again for joining the more than 1.2 million Americans of the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" movement.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:15 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.
June 18, 2008
Not every stretch of undeveloped land is beautiful—not Prudhoe Bay (where, by the way, the caribou herds are thriving), and not the next wasteland over, which holds billions of barrels of oil.
But try to tell that to the Brits who are reporting on this story.
Oh, how pretty! And the picture was taken in ANWR, so it must be from the proposed drilling site; after all, the media wouldn't mislead us about something like that.
This is the terrain we're discussing; it might be on the Prudhoe side, and it might be on the ANWR side (Jonah Goldberg, from whom I stole the pic, makes the point that it's impossible to tell which side any given image is on without checking his notes. This is not the High Sierras we're talking about "despoiling"; the terrain is objectively ugly. So provided that the native flora and fauna are protected when the oil is harvested (as they are in Prudhoe Bay, though our technology for doing same is getting better and better), there is no reason not to avail ourselves of this important natural resource, to buy ourselves time as we develop alternative fuels.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:05 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.
June 13, 2008
I don't need a Vespa; I can walk everywhere I need to go. I feel so sorry for people who need to use their cars. (Actually, I'm going to get my bike fixed up, and use that for some errands; the excellent thing is, it'll fit into the back of the Cruiser without any problems. And the Cruiser doesn't get horrible mileage, considering the fact that I can use it for some kinds of hauling.)
Via Insty.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:19 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.
Some have scoffed at how much impact Barr could have on the presidential race, but now at least one candidate is talking common sense on energy.
"At least" 86 billion barrels of oil? What are we waiting for?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:32 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
June 12, 2008
Remember: we have ANWR; we have the petroleum off of both coasts, and we have huge reserves of shale oil in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming that Shell has already invested millions in harvesting.
We can do this, people—but we need to show Washington D.C. that we mean business.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:58 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.
June 11, 2008
Oh, who cares? This won't not solve the immediate energy crunch; just the next one, in five or ten years—which . . . look over there! la la la la la la, I can't hear you!). We musn't develop any domestic supply. Let's leave the drilling to the sand niggers, shall we? Let other countries get their hands dirty—and never mind whether it's done in an environmentally sensitive fashion. Nor how much energy it takes to ship petroleum products here from overseas.
I want to remain pure, and untouched by the taint of petroleum. And, anyway, I must go wash my Prius off with Simple Green, using very little water. Then I shall go buy some Burt's Bees lip balm—it costs four times as much, but there's no petroleum in it. Sometimes I put a little on my halo, to shine it up a bit.
Look; I'm doing my part. Didn't I tell you about the solar heater for my pool? And I've been letting my hemp T-shirts dry in the air.
I did fill the tires in my bike, and now I can ride to Starbucks, which is a nice place to enjoy a cold chai latte on a hot afternoon while I check my email. Sometimes I get the green tea because it's got such healthy antioxidants in it.
Where were we? Oh, yes: oil. Dirty stuff. Simply don't want it around. Horrible smell, too: just like the tar on the beach in Santa Barbara. Ruined my best pair of running shoes.
Conclusion: oil is bad. Smells bad, and I hear that it makes people bleed, too. Bad, bad.
Bad.
Okay, I'm back. Do we need to look at that map again?
There is no denying that we are in the middle of an energy transition, and I believe that recent oil prices have really brought that home to people: fossil fuels will not last forever. We are living on borrowed time. We all know it.
But we can ramp up domestic production for the next 10-25 years to ease the transition. Given how dense a fuel petroleum is, we will still have uses for it even after most of us are driving electric/biofuel cars. And we don't want to be buying oil from dictators then, either.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:02 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 400 words, total size 2 kb.
June 10, 2008
Via Stacy McCain, who suggests that, "like shag haircuts, polyester leisure suits and the BeeGees," the gas tax is "a Seventies fad we don't need to go back to."
Why not? We don't seem to want to learn any of the other lessons from the 1970s.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.
June 09, 2008
We have on our hands a 1970s-style energy crisis. We cannot afford to bet the entire table on one solution; we must use a multi-pronged approach.
(1) We must begin developing domestic supplies; we know how to do it in an environmentally sensitive fashion, and there are massive reserves out there that can be used over the next decade without even making much of a dent. We can buy time this way, and we must.
(2) We need to build nuclear power plants for our electrical needs. This doesn't address our transportation needs, but it will help. Electricity is cheap, and will become cheaper as we learn to use it better in cars. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest alternatives out there.
(3) All of the other avenues we're exploring right now—for electricity, the uses to which we put natural gas (and the other possibilities it holds), the delicatessen of hybrid, electric, flex-fuel cars, biodiesel, and the legion of biofuels—must be sorted out by the market, which means that the government shouldn't be playing favorites among 'em.
If the Feds want to make themselves useful, they might want to come up only a few fuel standards (or maybe even only one—but certainly formulations by region) for this country. One of the burdens we are carrying right now is the need to formulate different gasoline for nearly every state. This is not just a commerce issue; it is a national security issue. Just as we needed an Interstate Highway System, we should at least consider streamlining our fuel requirements.
More: Jazz Shaw at The Moderate Voice, and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. (Ed's got a poll, too—and it forces one to choose between developing U.S. petroleum reserves, researching alternative energies, and building nuclear power plants. I see all three of those as equally important.)
Personally, I'm okay: I just moved to a location from which I can walk to the supermarket, restaurants, the bank, and theatres. But this is no way to run an economy; the situation is desperate, and we've got to take the handcuffs off of those entities that are in a position to help.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:06 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.
Salazar's efforts [U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.] have essentially pulled the rug out from under Shell (RDSA) and other oil companies which have invested many, many millions into oil shale research since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the original framework for commercial leasing of oil shale lands. (Last year, oil shale represented Shell's single biggest R&D expenditure.)Salazar says he's simply trying to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don't get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay. But, ironically, his bid to extend the moratorium comes at a time when his fellow Senate Democrats have been blasting Big Oil for not reinvesting enough of their profits into developing new sources of energy.
It's hard not to see all the obstructionism regarding energy development as a sort of Marie Antoinette approach to fuel transitioning: we should force conservation, force biofuels, force diesel. And we should do it on the backs of the poor and the middle class.
After all, if someone can't afford a Prius: well, fuck 'em. And, by the way: those who are suffering from the dictatorships and authoritarian governments propped up by American fuel dollars? Fuck them, too.
More:
Fortune: Why do you consider developing oil shale such a high priority?Sen. Hatch: We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world's oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I'm for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don't run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we're seeing that ethanol has major limitations.
It's pathetic. Environmentalists are very happy having us dependent on foreign oil. They're unhappy with us developing our own. What they forget to say is that shipping fuel all the way from the middle east has a big greenhouse gas footprint too.
Fortune: Any hope of changing Sen. Salazar's mind? After all, he says he's not opposed to oil shale production in principle.
Sen. Allard: His mind seems pretty set. His argument is, if we delay this, it gives us an opportunity to phase it in gradually. But he's got it turned around. We need the rules and regulations in place first. When the oil companies go to bid on their leases, they need have some idea what their royalties might be and what their remediation requirements might be [for restoring the land at spent drilling sites].
Fortune: Have you talked to Shell about this?
Sen. Allard: We have, and they've indicated a great deal of frustration. They've put it this way: Look, we can't continue to invest millions and millions of dollars in this kind of research without seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.
Fortune: Sen. Salazar insists he just wants to take things more slowly.
Sen. Hatch: Sen. Salazar and the Colorado governor [Democrat Bill Ritter] say they don't want it to happen too fast. Well, the existing law that I sponsored [which became part of the 2005 energy act] makes it abundantly clear that each governor gets to decide how quickly developments should move forward in their respective states. [Salazar and Ritter] know that. What they're really doing is making sure that the governor of Utah and the governor of Wyoming never get to make that decision for themselves.
No blood for oil. No sweat and tears, either.
Via Insty.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:38 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 587 words, total size 4 kb.
Why are Republicans, who voted in overwhelming numbers for off-shore drilling, ANWR, nuclear, shale, tar sands, liquid coal, etc—and were opposed by Democrats on grounds of wanting to enrich energy companies—not appealing to the country to develop domestic supplies on the basis of fairness (the poor have the least access to energy efficient homes and hybrid, fuel efficient new cars), the environment (the US can extract oil, in a fungible market, far more cleanly than Russia or the Middle East), and national security (most of OPEC, Russia, Venezuela are belligerents and becoming more dangerous the more trillions of dollars the West, China, and Japan transfer to them in their hard-won national wealth)?It is a ready-made issue for them, and with skill can appeal to Americans of every persuasion who are starting to snicker when Obama soars in pie-in-the-sky sermons about wind, solar, and millions of new jobs in green energy. Maybe—but back on planet America until we get there the working class is going to be paying a day or two per week of their wages to fuel their second-hand cars, while the environmentalists will buy new Priuses and an on-demand water heater for their tasteful homes. One would have thought the President, who was on right side of these production issues, would give a national address calling for a bipartisan effort to produce energy to get us through these hard times, or Republican senators would now be reintroducing energy legislation almost daily.
But given the current conservative ineptness, $5 a gallon gas will be blamed on the war, or lack of federal subsidies to solar, or the oil companies, and not the elite agenda of utopians who were not willing to do what was necessary for the collective good to help us transition through to new fuels.
My emphases; link via Insty.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:27 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.
Pajamas Media has two articles up on high gas prices; they seem contradictory (high gas prices are good; high gas prices are bad). But they really represent different sides of the same coin.
Kate Berry discusses high gas prices in the context of reshaping our habits into ones more appropriate in a wartime economy (though she doesn't quite put it in those terms). At this point, we are importing an alarming amount of oil from unsavory people, so her advice is important. I especially like the fact that she advocates married people having . . . sex. After all, staying home is great for the nation's oil reserves. I hadn't quite thought about it that way.
Tom Blumer talks about existing high gas prices—and the even higher ones proposed by those who would like to see us paying Europe-crazy fuel bills—in the context of what it is doing to our mobility, and to the auto industry. (Though I am not sure the overall trend is downward; I do realize that truck and SUV sales are down, possibly for good. I think the "family truck" bubble may have burst. But smaller cars are doing quite well, for obvious reasons.)
Blumer's most important point is that the U.S. still has tremendous untapped petroleum reserves that we need to develop. This is true: even if we are in the twilight of petroleum's heydey, we must buy time to develop the next generation of fuel alternatives. High prices push us to do this, to some degree, and they certainly make it more cost-effective to do so. But we are still working on excellence in our hybrid and electric cars, and we are still investigating biofuels. We cannot present people with a choice between supporting foreign dictators or absorbing a violent shock to the nation's economy by trying to rely on alternative fuels prematurely. Both the raw research and some of the distribution issues will take time to work out.
There is also the issue of energy apart from out transportation needs (though if one of our solutions to the car problem is hybrid/electric, these need not be separate issues). And for that, of course, we must look to France. Less-draconian regulations there allow the French to enjoy both better-quality cheese and environmentally friendly energy. Yeah, I'm going there: we need to start building more nuclear power plants in this country, The Simpsons' rather quaint characterization of nuclear power notwithstanding. (Does Matt Groening work for the French? Just askin.')
Drill. Conserve. Research all our options for transportation. And go nuclear for some of our electricity.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:51 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 463 words, total size 3 kb.
June 07, 2008
"Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." Sign the petition at American Solutions.
(This is not, BTW, a movement that is against alternative energies—it is about buying us time to develop them properly, and about taking money out of the pockets of America's enemies.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:32 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.
May 29, 2008
I'm starting to withdraw from the notion that we shouldn't make fuel out of corn or soy: if those fuels will make money, we can grow more of 'em, and feed people at the same time. The critical issue is figuring out which fuels take less land—and energy—to "produce."
Via Insty.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:41 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
May 20, 2008
h/t: Insty.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
May 19, 2008
Well. Earl Grey tea with a bit of whole milk in it. "Let's stick to the facts." And I suppose it's a bit more of a big deal when one is powering an entire car.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.
217 queries taking 0.1348 seconds, 494 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
