May 15, 2008
May 01, 2008
Collins at Protein Wisdom
. . . on the chances that we might be able to
end ethanol subsidies. I'd love to see the playing field leveled a bit, and see the government stop essentially paying people to make fuel out of soybeans and corn.
Sugarcane is fine. Soybeans and corn make me kind of queasy, unless or until we are into excess production on the latter two.
Switchgrass and algae, however, are awesome.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.
April 26, 2008
One More from Glenn . . .
This one on the
insanity with which we are approaching biofuels, which should be a straightforward matter (not simple—but straightforward):
The problem with ethanol is a government-subsidy problem, and a trade-barrier problem. It's not a problem with ethanol itself. Make it out of something other than food, and lower the barrier to Brazilian ethanol imports, and it would help our current situation a lot. We're not doing that because of farm-subsidy politics. The problem is, basically, the Iowa caucuses and the pandering that results. But simply bashing all biofuels uncritically is dumb.
UPDATE: On the other hand, the new farm bill demonstrates that Congress is dumber:
We have a program that makes us overpay for sugar, and now we're going to start a new program to subsidize the ethanol we create from it — because without the subsidy, the inflated sugar price we've created will make the ethanol unprofitable.
Upside: Everybody involved has an incentive to pay off some Senators.
Well, now, let's be fair: biofuels are too important to leave pricing up to the market.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:36 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Um...awful hard to read your links in the box (like, impossible unless I mouse over them). Maybe it's my Firefox.
Posted by: Mister Prickly at April 26, 2008 12:32 PM (/9Waz)
2
The free market is always the best hope!
Notice that any interference always causes problems?
Note to Mr Prickly: It appears normal in IE7.
Posted by: Darrell at April 26, 2008 03:04 PM (Z3cVk)
3
In Safari, links appear invisible in my blockquotes--something I keep meaning to fix. In the meantime, if at all possible I leave the links outside the quotation, even if it means being a bit redundant in the text.
Got to get this joint classed up, soon.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 26, 2008 08:59 PM (Hgnbj)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 28, 2008
FoodFuel Fight.
Right
here, at
Hit & Run.
I'm afraid that I tend to toggle back and forth a bit on subsidized biofuels, just as I did with the space program.
But I'd like to see the former go private, just as the latter is starting to.
And, ethanol. Ugh. Homey don't play that.
But I think we need to remember that all of the alternative fuels are in their infancy. Of course they are not efficient yet. We're still identifying, um, as Edison might have put it, "ways to do it that don't work."
That doesn't mean that there isn't a way that will.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:16 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I meant corn ethanol, of course. And I may feel differently about those systems that use
every part of the corn plant, including the stalks, etc.
Though I do share Glenn Reynolds' squeamishness about making fuel out of foodstuffs.
The point is, we aren't
there yet in terms of information-gathering, so it isn't time to start throwing rocks.
Posted by: Attila Girl at March 29, 2008 11:33 AM (BYH4x)
2
The old dictum that the government which governs least, governs best, is quite applicable to the debate on subsidizing anything, including biofuels.
People get subsidies not because their product should be saved or promoted, but because they have friends in Congress.
And the way the government moves (slowly, and listening to only the subset of the people that buy lunches for Congressmen), we will likely find ourselves years down a path that is ultimately unworkable before we learn it's a bad idea.
Posted by: John at March 30, 2008 09:43 AM (vVb85)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 14, 2008
Something from Ben Stein the Economist . . .
I swear, he's like Isaac Asimov: he doesn't set intellectual limits on himself, and he's ridiculously productive.
Courtesy of Jane Van Ryan of Energy API—my favorite educator on the subject of energy—comes a short interview she conducted with stud/god Stein on how important it is not to demonize the oil and natural gas industries. (There's a transcript of the exchange on the linked page, as well as the podcast itself.)
Money quote:
Recently, there has been a great deal of talk about alternatives, and while they will play a part in supplying future energy, they will only meet a miniscule amount of demand for many years. Oil and natural gas will be the bedrock of our society and all industrialized societies for the foreseeable future.
Our goal should be to increase supplies and stop criticizing those who are bringing it to us.
As we speak, the House Democrats are trying to push a bill through that will increase taxes on the energy industry to punitive levels. Given the need right now to re-invest in R&D and figure out which energy sources might eventually be able to supplant oil and natural gas, this seems incredibly short-sighted. Call your congresscritter, and let him or her know that this isn't the time to undercut the people who are helping us figure out how we're going to function in the future.
If Pelosi wants the punish entities simply for making money, the least she could do is send the confiscated funds to a worthy cause. Like, you know: me.
Seriously: this is a rather stupid idea.
Make the call.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:56 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.
January 25, 2007
Glenn Reminds Us
. . . to
crunch the numbers on alternative fuels.
The point about oil-producing countries is very good: most of them will let the price of crude ease down when they sense that we are getting serious about alternative energy sources for our cars.
Hybrids and biodiesel both sound promising. Ethanol—at least, when it's made of food-grade corn—still makes me uneasy, and I can't quite say why: the idea of turning food into fuel for cars just sounds backward to me.
But anything we can do to bring production of energy inside the States is a beautiful thing.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:53 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Anything we can do to RETURN production of ANYTHING to the States is a beautiful thing.
Posted by: yazoota at January 25, 2007 10:26 AM (xUyci)
2
Oh, you Buchananites all sound alike . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 25, 2007 11:57 AM (0CbUL)
3
There was a great show about this very thing on the History channel last night, explaing how much fossil feul it takes to produce different types of alternative fuels, and which resources are the MOST environmentally sound.
Interesting that producing ethanol from sugar cane requires 8 times LESS petroleum product than does production of ethanol from corn.
Also, those "plug-in" super hybrids that people have made? Not saving the environment unless the plug is plugged into an alternate energy source, since it takes as much fossil feul to produce the electricity as is saved on the gas, if not more.
Posted by: caltechgirl at January 25, 2007 01:19 PM (/vgMZ)
4
So, What countries to batteries come from?
And where do the batteries go when you're done with them?
Just askin', that's all.
-Bob
Posted by: Bob at January 25, 2007 07:43 PM (2tBSJ)
5
(1)Battery Park, NYC. NY
(2)Into the waste stream.
Posted by: Darrell at January 25, 2007 09:45 PM (Ddvv8)
6
Don't we just dump 'em in Nevada?
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 26, 2007 12:50 AM (0CbUL)
7
I find it interesting that the best fuel source being proliferated in every major country in the world which actually does reduce carbon emissions is not being expanded in the USA. Nuclear.
Posted by: Jack at January 27, 2007 08:12 AM (u6fWj)
8
There aren't too many financially healthy electric utilities that could pursue the nuclear power option--the Left saw to that by playing rope-a-dope with them in the 70's and 80's. And little things like 'rate freezes" since. Before the "global warming' hoax, the Left stopped nuclear power in the US while fawning over how great those shoddy plants with no containment in the Soviet Union were.The Left covets utilities as State-run enterprises and a source of jobs. If you think you are paying a lot for energy now, just wait until the Left gets their greedy-little hands on the throttle! The escalating rates will be sold as holy sacrifices to the State--encouraging 'sane' allocation to the masses. Your sacrifice will pay for those who can't pay. And how can you argue when you are talking about a necessity?
Electric utilities can't add nuclear plants to the rate base until the plant is up and running. That means the shareholders pay everything until that point. Interest during construction could easily be $1million/day on a plant of that size. So get out your handy calculators and see what a ten-year delay does to the cost of the plant. And did.
No one has yet solved the basic problems of the nuclear fission process where you have a waste stream you have to deal with for 100,000 years. Let's see that presented as 'holy'. Maybe if some of those $billions being spent on the pseudo-science of global warming was applied to nuclear fusion research, there would be a solution.
Posted by: Darrell at January 29, 2007 10:03 AM (I2z+D)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 24, 2007
The Also-Rans in the Hybrid Race.
It looks like Saturn
is developing a hybrid, after all: Attila the Hub mentioned this to me, and I assumed he'd somehow gotten it wrong. Because I know everything, you see: surely I would have known
that.
The GM idea of plugging in the car into a regular outlet is intriguing, but it seems to me that feature is only useful if the car can run entirely without gasoline—if the battery can carry the entire load from time to time.
The Business Week article glosses over the fact that Ford got into the hybrid game before GM did, but it makes a good point about how Ford's Escapes and Explorers get better gas mileage than Toyota's comparable vehicles.
Even with gas prices going down, I just don't think people are in the mood to pay a lot for gasoline: it's something the right and the left can largely agree upon these days.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:22 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Developing? yes, I'm sure. You can also purchase a Greenline Vue for about $25K, which is an electric/fuel hybrid, which so far as I know works on the same priciple as the Prius.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at January 24, 2007 06:29 AM (1hM1d)
2
The Saturn Greenline Vue (available since late 2006) offers an assist from an electric motor that gives about a 20% bump in fuel economy. The system never lets the (small) electric motor do all the work, unlike other hybrids. This allows Saturn to sell their "hybrid-lite" version for about $2000 more than the standard model versus $3500-$8000 for its competitors.
Posted by: Darrell at January 24, 2007 01:33 PM (+IU6j)
3
The Saturn Greenline Vue (available since late 2006) offers an assist from an electric motor that gives about a 20% bump in fuel economy. The system never lets the (small) electric motor do all the work, unlike other hybrids. This allows Saturn to sell their "hybrid-lite" version for about $2000 more than the standard model versus $3500-$8000 for its competitors
Posted by: Darrell at January 24, 2007 01:36 PM (+IU6j)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 14, 2007
Read This M. Simon Piece
. . . on timetables and
renewable energy.
Thanks.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:11 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"There is no problem that a little fascism won't solve." Ain't that the truth!
We've got fascism for the left's favorite causes and we've got fascism for the right's favorite causes, and so it doesn't matter who wins elections--what we get is more and more fascism (statism actually).
"But...but, OUR fascism is GOOD fascism and theirs is E-evil!"
Right. Someone's been suckered...
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 16, 2007 07:05 AM (xdX36)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 03, 2007
Hm. Great Idea.
I love the idea of
exposing Leftist hypocrisy, but I think the contest should be expanded beyond the Bay Area.
Also, I'm not sure about including the Honda Civic in the winner's circle. Thirty MPG may not be outstanding, but it's hardly awful. (Of course, I realize that if we're really waging war for oil, and it's a bad thing to do, these people shouldn't be driving at all. So there's that.)
Via Ace.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:53 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It doesn't matter how well you expose their hypocrisy -- they are completely unable to see it.
It's like trying to explain to a blind man in a black tuxedo
that he's wearing brown shoes.
Arguing facts with a person who is bound by feeling is like
arguing with a fool (and who can tell them apart?).
-B
Posted by: Bob at January 03, 2007 01:28 PM (CP6tB)
2
I know there are people out there to whom that applies, but you know what?--I have an awful lot of very smart lefty friends.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 03, 2007 09:48 PM (zxOEV)
3
um, I wouldn't disagree that many lefties are smart. but they still resort to emotional appeals rather than logic. "I feel your pain" ;D
Posted by: maggie katzen at January 03, 2007 10:47 PM (movWU)
4
Intelligence in service to emotions is not wisdom, it's
cleverness. That's the same skill drug addicts use to get more
dope. I know some very clever (former) drug addicts.
Cleverness can be used to try to rationalize ANYTHING.
-B
Posted by: Bob at January 04, 2007 07:27 AM (CP6tB)
5
Some if it isn't emotion. Some of it has to do with ideals--ideals that I share, but feel are misapplied in a lot of geopolitical situations.
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 04, 2007 11:50 AM (zxOEV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 13, 2006
I May Not Be a Hippie Any More
. . . but I still
eat this shit up. Maybe more, now that I know what our dependence on foreign oil is doing to human lives all over the world.
Not everyone wants to live off the grid—but decentralization sounds like a cool way to go. Personally, I'm getting a windmill for my backyard.
From everyone's favorite PM whore. (I say that with love.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:32 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
February 07, 2006
Nice Discussion of Alternate Fuels
. . . over at
Dean's place. Given the extreme nature of our situation, is government interference in the market justified? I think it probably is, but if it's done, I'd like to see it done right.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:30 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Is it that extreme? I have read (and I wish I had the references) that a good part of why the US has become more dependent upon foreign sources of oil has a lot to do with *existing* government interference in the marketplace. Not just environmental regulations that make drilling and refining all but impossible, but other structural and financial obstacles to domestic production.
Posted by: Desert Cat at February 09, 2006 03:59 PM (B2X7i)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 01, 2006
New Horizons in Post-Presidential Careers
You like to think you earn from sweat and human toil, oh yeah.
But right now in the Middle East it's coming to a boil
And you're gonna have to face it: you're addicted to oil.
Somewhere, Robert Palmer is smiling, as Karl Rove makes plans to produce Bush's first music video, complete with a chorus line of skinny women wearing short, tight skirts.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:12 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I was kind of hoping for a link to the video, Ms. Attila. Those women played a very, very important role in my adolescent fantasy life.
Posted by: utron at February 01, 2006 12:15 PM (CgIkY)
2
Karl, I'll take the DVD extended version with all the goodies. I've been trying to get one of Robert Palmer's original work for years...I was sorry to read Mr. Palmer disavowing those wonderful videos. President Bush, if you don't want to make the videos yourself(you don't have to really be there, like Robert Palmer said he wasn't), why not ask Ms Rice to stand in? Black leather will do. I see it as a good way of kicking off her campaign...
Posted by: Darrell at February 02, 2006 09:23 AM (LLPZ7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 30, 2006
Foster
. . . on the possibility that we're
breaking through on solar power. (Yes; the subsidies will have to go, but go read: there may be some real potential there.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:36 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
1
oopsie...linky on da blinky.
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 30, 2006 04:45 PM (B2X7i)
2
You're oppressing me with your patriarchal ideas that all links have to go somewhere. Why? Maybe a link can be enjoyed all on its own without some sort of testosterone-driven notion that it has to "go" to another website.
I'm trying to help my readers evolve to the point that they enjoy the more static, woman-friendly static links that will encourage them to look inward for answers.
Either that, or I blew it again . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 30, 2006 06:10 PM (XbEp3)
3
And look! It took me only nine minutes to oppress you with my testosterone-driven demand for functional links! That must mean I'm stalking you as well.
I don't see a real breakthrough for solar power until the present worth of unsubsidized solar power installations exceeds that of other energy sources. As it is right now, even many subsidy programs make it barely a breakeven proposition over the expected twenty year lifespan of the equipment. For this to happen, the cost per watt has to come down substantially.
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 30, 2006 07:50 PM (xdX36)
4
I think David's point about safe, cheap storage was pretty important. I assume that in your neck of the woods, as in mine, solar is pretty universal for the heating of swimming pools--not that such a fringe use will lead solar to the tipping point, but it does help, no?
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 30, 2006 07:58 PM (XbEp3)
5
Well, no it doesn't help. You are talking apples, oranges and kumquats. The solar pool heaters don't use silicon in their manufacture--not the purified grade, anyway, that goes into photovoltaic(PV) panels and silicon chips. Solar thermal panels are essentially pipes in a box, sometimes with a glass(yes, silica, but not the kind we are talking about) front panel. And in the short-term, PV panel costs(and silicon chips)will rise as they both compete for the same scarce supply of purified silicon. The new plants will help--maybe--assuming they do their homework to increase process efficiency(or increase plant throughput) to offset the higher costs associated with the newer costruction.
The balance of sytem(BOS) costs exceed the cost of the panels now, and probably will for the foreseeable future. These costs include the power inverters, power conditioners, storage batteries, wiring, disconnects, panel protection diodes, panel supports, etc. Unit cost O&M on some of the more delicate components can exceed the cost of utility-purchased power by itself. Without the subsidies, PV wouldn't have a prayer. No breakthroughs---yet. Your best bet to use solar power economically is still passive solar. And will be for quite some time.
Posted by: Darrell at January 30, 2006 10:39 PM (qFfZO)
6
So, on a cold day I should just go read in my car, where the sun makes it nice and toasty?
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 30, 2006 11:00 PM (XbEp3)
7
Precisely!
Maybe with cashmerer gloves, hats, and socks for your size 5s...
Right now all these active solar projects just make people feel good at great expense to society---taxpayers. The money would be better put to use on projects that don't cost 2-5 times more than the conventional alternative. Or on projects to actually save people money, like insulation, upgrading ineffeicient space conditioning equipment, etc. As a nation, we have to take advantage of the geothermal resources sitting free beneath our feet. And get known, available equipment like gas and electric heat pumps to a broader audience. Don't forget utility-scale power generation, either.
Posted by: Darrell at January 31, 2006 08:46 AM (9hSOQ)
8
Darrell..what do you mean by "Don't forget utility-scale power generation?"
Also, consider that the power electronics surrounding solar is also subject to scale economies, and these may be helped by the increasing role played by electricity for automotive applications.
Posted by: David Foster at January 31, 2006 09:23 AM (/Z304)
9
We haven't begun to take advantage of the potential for large-scale(100-600MW) solar thermal plants in areas of the country where it makes sense, like the Southwest. Economic incentives here make a lot more sense than for individual residential systems. The exceptions are cheap and quick solutions that should be part of all new construction like supplemental water/pool heating, and readily-available and well-understood little tricks like Trombe walls.
Sure, I'm all for cheaper and more reliable power inverters and conditioners, and storage batteries. Hybrids will help here, but I don't know how much. I can't wait for automotive fuel cells! Or better/cheaper DC motors, for that matter and DC appliances of all sorts to avoid the necessity of power inverters.
Posted by: Darrell at January 31, 2006 12:02 PM (Xn/cn)
10
Solar thermal...I believe this refers to using mirrors to concentrate solar energy on a boiler of some kind, and then generate the electricity with a heat engine in the normal way? (I think I've heard this referred to the "tower of power" concept)
For large-scale use, this may have some significant advantages over solar cells...for one thing, there would be at least some inherent storage capacity, maybe several hours' worth if something like molten salt is used in the cycle.
I wonder how the mirrors all get cleaned, though..robots? Or a new career opportunity, "solar mirror cleaner"....
Posted by: David Foster at January 31, 2006 02:04 PM (/Z304)
11
Solar thermal is reserved for any use where you are just interested in the heat, like those solar water heaters. For utility applications, you can have mirrored parabolic troughs with a pipe running above, or the central power tower you described, with mirrors concentrating the solar energy on the tower. Yes, they do clean them and some have built-in systems to assist. And, no. They don't do it at night. They move the mirrrors...
There is another solar thermal strategy by the way, OTEC--ocean thermal energy conversion relying on the differences in water temp at the surface and deep below. Wind energy is technically solar thermal, also. I know LMA is a stickler for completeness and I don't want to face her wrath!
Posted by: Darrell at January 31, 2006 10:07 PM (7alUb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 02, 2006
Have You Drilled ANWR Today?
Scary
news from Europe. I suspect Russia will eventually accept the notion of phasing in market prices for natural gas in Ukraine, but we do well to remember the risks associated with excessive energy dependence.
I gotta go; I'm building a nuclear reactor in my backyard. I'd like to live-blog it, but it turns out I have to concentrate a bit. Also, there's no place to set down my gin & tonic, so I borrowed one of those "runner's water backpacks" from my husband: the G&T is in the main chamber of the pack, and a tube comes around to my mouth, so I can more or less keep rehydrating as I go. Very healthy.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:59 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You know, I can think of nothing more fulfilling than constructing a nuclear reactor underneath the back garden while drinking a large gin and tonic, followed by perhaps a bellini or two.
Actually, there is something better: getting other people to build the reactor while you sit back and watch the day go by drinking gin and tonics and bellini... ;-)
Posted by: raw carrot at January 02, 2006 07:44 PM (3wF0a)
2
Trolling for Echelon hits much?
Posted by: Desert Cat at January 03, 2006 07:17 PM (xdX36)
3
I feel that if I act now I can corner the market and sell lots of blogads that target UK-owned bots.
I'm also planning on assassinating Tony Blair, but don't tell anybody, okay?
Posted by: Attila Girl at January 03, 2006 09:36 PM (zZMVu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 21, 2005
Oh, For Crying Out Loud
Could we get
ANWR drilling passed if we simply prohibited northeasterners who've never even been to Alaska from voting on any bill that includes such drilling?
This can be done in such a way that the ecosystem is protected. Alaska needs it, and the country needs it. Drill.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.
November 28, 2005
I Have to Admit It—
the idea of a few liberal "Rebublican" legislators in the Northeast
undermining a project that will provide jobs in the West—and enhance U.S. energy supplies at the same time—really grinds my gears.
Particularly if they're being financed, in part, by the charming George Soros.
Something's rotten on Main Street.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:21 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thanks for the news which my hometown paper in Fargo won´t print. We have Democrats in the US Senate, (Dorgan and Conrad) ready to make deals with Communists in order to pull down President Bush and the Republicans. As long as the Democrats can make us the enemy instead of Communists trying to suck the life out of our nation and attack us with low priced oil deals, I am disheartened to consider what other deals the Democrats want to make with Communists. These 2 guys who represent my state of North Dakota also seem to love the government control over healthcare in Canada. Too bad we don´t have you to help lead these socialists into defeat in 2006. Keep up the good work and sharing important information with your readers.
Posted by: Crystal Dueker at November 28, 2005 01:16 PM (F69Ii)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 11, 2005
Gasoline Prices
We
are being gouged. Michael Demmons
proves it.
[h/t: Outside the Beltway.]
Posted by: Attila at
08:17 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at November 11, 2005 08:37 AM (TX6xQ)
2
This is silly, especially when many on the right have being proposing some equivalent of sales tax.
Serious fiscal conservatives have been modrately comfortable with a higher gas tax so long as it was matched by reductions elsewhere.
It is believed that the market would then provide more efficient vehicles and alternatives.
This is starting to happen, but the money is going to countries like Iran and Venzuela. Our enemies.
Fortunatly even a little conservation is bringing prices down, still we are sending billions to the terrorists.
We also have a situation where it takes twice as much energy to produce a dollar of product as other industrial countries. This of course gives our competitors an advantage.
Understand your pampered life is going to be less spoiled, your whole attitude is that of a princess so proud she can write 2 paragraphs of cliched banalities. Undoubtedly this worked well for you in what passes for education and there is no question that mediocrity is valued in many instiitutions, but they are threatened. And so is your pampered me me me lifestyle.
Posted by: conservative at November 11, 2005 11:07 AM (fvmvd)
3
I have to agree with conservatives gist. Republicans are no longer conservatiives, we expect the federal government to pay Republican states far more than they give in taxes and then think it normal that Democratic states get less and that the difference is made up in borrowing.
The assumption that the states should stop paying for roads which is were gas taxes go is a further example of this irresponsibility.
Yes I know that in theory Bush could borrow the money, but believe me it's a bad idea. And outside of the land of make believe roads don't build or mantain themselves.
I am saddened by those who think that taxing those who use those roads is gouging. I think you take too much for granted.
Posted by: sensible at November 11, 2005 04:42 PM (+RmzR)
4
The US is more than competetive with the rest of the industrialized world. Energy is still cheaper than Euro-Socialist labor with 35 hour work weeks, 8 week vacations, and all those benefits and low productivity to boot. What do you think Kyoto is all about?
The run-up of oil prices took place in the Futures Market. And all the action was from sources outside the traditional players--producers/consumers hedging. Lots of this action was from the Left. Could someone have been trying to win an election or two? The buggers wound up doubling and tripling their money. Sending lots more to less-than-friendly producers, too. Some of which, of course, comes back to the Left from those agreements the Left made with the Islamofascists...
Posted by: Darrell at November 11, 2005 09:59 PM (1A+wa)
5
Um, "Con"/"Sensible" . . . ? It's a joke.
But thank, Con, for the "proud princess" moniker. Better than the more-shopworn "pampered princess." Of course, I like to think I'm both.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 11, 2005 10:03 PM (x3SIT)
6
Darrell, that is interesting information. Do you have sources that can show clearly where the atypical buying pressure was coming from? I know big traders have reporting requirements that lag the market by some time. But I didn't know speculators had such requirements.
It was pretty clear to just about everyone that the price spike was speculatively driven. The fundamentals were just not there to support it. Now that the bubble seems to have popped, this is all the more clear.
I really want to believe what you are saying, but...that is part of the problem. I don't want to be too credulous on something that my (admittedly limited) knowledge of commodity markets tells me would be hard to prove.
Of course, as the left has demostrated to us, if you repeat an assertion emphatically and frequently enough, it becomes "fact".
Posted by: Desert Cat at November 12, 2005 11:45 AM (xdX36)
7
I will remember this forever, as the instance of Some Other People taking a joke for serious and getting all riled up.
I'm Not Alone!
Oh, precious, precious. Oh, thank you, Little Miss Attila and Readers.
Posted by: k at November 12, 2005 04:49 PM (6krEN)
8
Just private conversations with traders/brokers in the crude oil futures market. They know who their regular clients are. I agree that it would be difficult to document...if you're not the SEC. Sort of like proving the Dems sold out their portfolios before they started the "talk down the economy thing" after Jan. 2002. Remember when they said for every 100 point drop in the Dow they would get 6(from memory) seats in the House? I didn't see them losing on a personal basis. The only reporter I could get to look into it was Amity Shlaes of FT. Of course her questions went unanswered.
Posted by: Darrell at November 12, 2005 10:18 PM (7JNG5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 10, 2005
ANWR
I'm sorry. Given that drilling for oil can be done in an environmentally sensitive fashion, and given the price that we pay for dependence on foreign oil, I just don't get it. I do not understand why we aren't using everything in the toolbox to break our dependence on outside energy.
Sure: conservation is part of the solution. New technologies are part of the solution. But we need to develop other options in the meantime. I don't understand the argument that "it won't solve the problem 100%, so it's not worth doing." We should be approaching this from a number of different angles.
Michelle Malkin reprinted this letter to Hastert from her reader Rick, whose blog is here (go to her site for many, many more letters from disappointed people):
I have a neighbor who is a single mother. She struggles, but she gets by with a combination of determination and hard work.
. . . .
Not too long ago she came to my wife in tears, humiliated by the need to borrow money from us; gasoline prices, you see, were high enough to break her meager budget. Thanks to your "leadership", they aren't likely to drop too far, are they?
I served in the Army as an Intelligence Analyst and served in Desert Shield/Desert Storm; I happen to know that dependence on foreign oil has a number of effects- It keeps the price higher; it makes us strategically weaker; it funnels money out of our economy; and it puts some of that money in the pockets of groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and al-Qaeda.
So while the tundra of remote Alaskan coasts may not have a oil derrick, some of the money I spend on gas will be going to the creation of roadside bombs in
Iraq. So while Zarqawi may thanks you, I most emphatically do not.
People are dying because of the terrorism caused by oil money in the hands of despots and outlaw groups. While I understand that energy is essential to economic development—and development is making lives better and safer in the third world, not to mention here—I don't understand why we don't do what we can to ease the suffering just a little.
Drill ANWR. Build refineries. Now.
Posted by: Attila at
08:33 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.
1
You know you areinviting stupid arguments here. tis is one of those debates where there seems to be a set piece openng of dumbness tht must be waded through to get to the actual arguments, either way.
To me, the actual arguments aren't COMPELLING either way. Skipping the arguments, for me, the tiebreaker was that people in the area wanted it.
Oh, did i mention that i was living in Oregon? when i moved here about a dozen years ago, i mentioned offhandedly that i was an environmentalist. luckily my brother-in-law was able to keep me from being killed, and i had to talk my way out of it. Seems that everyone in oregon knows someone who has been hurt by environmental edicts, often to no purpose, in the end.
Oregon has a long history of environmental activism. our beaches cannot be owned, and must be available to everyone. We had the first can law.
but the feds came in and made rulse whch favored animals to the detriment of people. the timber industry was destroyed by a bird. later, new research showed that te bird was never endangered. in the last few summers, the feds have insisted that scarce water goes to save a fish, while farmers crops fail for lack of it.
You see, the federal environmenatlists, unlike the Oregon environmentalists, who looked for fair solutions, do not care about people. People are not in their job description. and this is true of the major environmental groups.
Why this long runaround?
Because, I'm afraid, my tie breaker will mean nothing to the feds or to the environmental groups. the people of the area are no concern of theirs.
Posted by: Averroes at November 11, 2005 07:40 AM (jlOCy)
2
And a lot of people who don't live there fail to realize that Alaska is in a lot of ways a "poor" state. It's underdeveloped, and it's costly to live there.
They could really use this.
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 11, 2005 08:02 AM (x3SIT)
3
Perhaps this specific issue could be argued either way...but the problem is that the "progressives" will oppose *any* form of energy production. Want to build a coal plant? They'll object to the pollution. Maybe gasify the coal before burning it? They'll complain about CO2. Windmills? Views and birds. Nuclear? They think it's a form of black magic. Solar? To the extent that it succeeds on a large scale, I'm confident they'll find something to object to--maybe toxic materials in the storage batteries or in the solar cells themselves.
The whole idea of *tradeoffs* is missing from the worldview of people who want to live in perpetual infantilism.
Posted by: David Foster at November 11, 2005 08:31 AM (7TmYw)
4
Certainly, let's drill in the ANWR.
And let's legally and enforceable reduce oil imports, barrel-for-barrel, for each barrel we extract. After all, if the excess supply just pushes down the price and we consume more, we've managed to achieve the worst of both worlds: We're still sending money to hostile nations,
and we've drilled in the ANWR, and sustained our dependence on both.
OK?
Posted by: Christophe at November 11, 2005 12:51 PM (2rBIo)
5
No. But thank you for playing.
It is interesting that most charges of hypocrisy leveled at either the left or the right can be flipped; I check myself using this "mirror technique" all the time. You appear to be wondering whether I'd go along with measures that would ensure prices stay high, to makes sure the economic incentives were there for conservation and development of other options.
I think the incentives are clear enough, for anyone who's lived through both the 1970s and the double-aughts (the present decade).
But I've always wondered why my local public radio stations bemoan high gasoline prices in one hour, and then discuss why we aren't developing alternatives the next.
Personally, I adore rail and cars with high gas mileage. Don't tell my friends, 'kay?
Posted by: Attila Girl at November 11, 2005 10:22 PM (x3SIT)
6
I think I have entered Bizarro Earth. Republicans are saying that the price of a commodity has to be adjusted downwards by statist intervention in order to avoid hurting the poor and to achieve foreign policy goals. This sounds like a Chirac speech.
The only thing that will cause alternatives to oil to be developed is high oil prices. This is not exactly a revolutionary notion; markets work on price signals. When oil prices go up, alternatives become economical; when oil prices fall, alternatives become uneconomical and the economy drops them like a rock.
This is why OPEC isn't happy at all about the current price spike: OPEC knows full well that the fastest way to get the world off the oil habit is to make oil so expensive that the alternatives look good. Tactically, they're rolling in it, but they've been here before, and seen the result. (In fact, we all are: Saudi Arabia's declining ability to buy off its youth with pseudo-jobs was one of the big creators of radical Islamists in the 1990s.) They'd much rather keep the price moderate so that there is no incentive to do anything but suck up crude. As the oil execs said, they think in decades.
Of all of the reasons that oil has gotten more expensive right now (instability over Iran, the Iraq war, China and India's growth, refinery undercapacity, Katrina and Wilma, etc.), the lack of the ANWR supply is about #3,135. ANWR is a trivial make-work project dressed up in energy patriotism.
A memory of a previous shock does exactly nothing to provide incentives to develop alternatives; a glance at the average fuel efficiency of an American car since the late 1970s will show that, well, graphically. Price increases, though, work wonders, as world+dog rushes to squeeze crude out of Canadian oil sands that couldn't have gotten themselves arrested five years ago.
I'm 100% in favor of sending less money to Saudi Arabia, et al. And this price spike is the best thing that's ever happened for that.
Posted by: Christophe at November 12, 2005 05:22 PM (td8Qe)
7
Why didn't the 1970's propel us to alternative energy sources?
Short and simplistic answer:
CAFE standards.
Posted by: Averroes at November 13, 2005 04:03 PM (jlOCy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 27, 2005
Energy Bar
John Carey, writing in
Business Week, blasts Bush's energy proposals for being potentially popular. He includes this nugget of wisdom:
Want to increase supplies of oil and gas? Instead of drilling in the ANWR or adding a few LNG ports, Bush could open up areas like the Gulf coast of Florida or the Rocky Mountains, which has a 60-year supply of natural gas, to exploration and drilling. But that wouldn't be popular in Florida, where his brother Jeb is governor, or in some of the Western states that are strong Bush country.
To say that is to implicitly admit that the people of Colorado and Florida probably don't want this drilling to happen. Maybe they're right; maybe they aren't. But the interesting thing about drilling in ANWR is that Alaskans—for the most part—want it. It's being hung up by general misconceptions about what it would mean for wildlife, and by northeastern liberals who've never been to that part of Alaska and don't even know what the terrain looks like.
Posted by: Attila at
09:58 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.
1
re: "...Alaskans—for the most part—want it." Do you have any published data to support that? It would be damned handy to be able to use such evidence in an ongoing debate in which I find myself embroiled.
Posted by: david at April 28, 2005 08:16 AM (s5NT2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 14, 2005
Modems, Trains, and Automobiles
As most of you know, I'm the one libertarian in the country who still believes rail transit could work in the Southwest, even in Los Angeles—provided it's handled in a smart way. (Mostly, of course, it has not been.) For instance, there should be a high-speed train running between L.A. and Las Vegas, and probably one running to SF or the East Bay. I happen to like to drive to those places, but for most people it's a chore, and a bullet train would be a lot more convenient for most. (Particularly the drinkers going to Sin City.)
Daily commutes are harder to handle, but I like staggering people's arrival times, so that some get to the office early, and others get there late. This helps ease up on traffic, and wastes less fuel from the stop-and-go effect. But VariFrank's idea of getting more people—a lot more people—to telecommute is pretty brilliant. My first thought is, can most people create an office in their homes? I realize that of course they can, even if it's even in a corner. A lot of homes I know have a "junk room" that its occupants would gladly clear out if it were going to save them ten hours a week that they could then use for anything they wanted.
Via Glenn, who has a few thoughts of his own on how to approach energy policy without turning it into a moralistic crusade and sounding like a bunch of Sunday school teachers. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: Attila at
12:14 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
1
My home office is in an extra bedroom. My fine man created a beautiful work station for me when he worked for an office furniture company. The workstation, filing cabinets, bookshelves etc. are mostly wood. It looks like an office, a happy pretty comfy one. For several years I ran a small business from here. Many of my neighbors have similar setups.
Staggered arrival times, telecommuting, etc. are nothing new. They're effective for energy conservation and tend to increase employee production. So why aren't they being adopted by more businesses and energy-policy folks? To me, that's the real question.
Posted by: k at February 15, 2005 05:42 PM (+7VNs)
2
The answer is that not everyone is capable of working from home. There are some unique distractions (and temptations) that telecommuters must face and overcome.
It is vital that remote employees have a solid work ethic and that their manager can track their progress toward completing what is required of them.
That said, I cannot think of a more rewarding way to work than telecommuting from home. The flexible work environment and relaxed dress makes me more productive and allows me to watch the kids in a pinch and blog during the day.
I've done it for over 5 years and have decided that my next job will also be from home if at all possible.
Posted by: King of Fools at February 16, 2005 07:16 AM (ktIW6)
3
If you want a good thought experiment, imagine where trains would be in this country without the truckers unions.
18 wheelers (or, worse, 2-3 trailer rigs) are used to convey stuff from any x to any y in America, and how stupid is that? Trains are a much better answer for interstate and long-haul commercial shipping. If there were commercial shipping via trains, Amtrak would disappear just as quickly as it took for a freight hauler to tack on a few passenger trains on the most promising lines.
In other words, here is one more reason that soc-ialism in any form stinks.
John
Posted by: John at February 20, 2005 10:54 PM (/3kwi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
88kb generated in CPU 0.033, elapsed 0.1551 seconds.
220 queries taking 0.141 seconds, 511 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.