posted June 25, 2009 11:33 AM         

Bush said Drill, Drill, Drill and crude oil prices fell from $147 per barrel to about $32 per barrel. Energy producers were wetting themselves over the prospect the US appeared ready to tap energy resources which outweigh all the other nations on earth.

They're not wetting themselves now. O'Bomber has signaled his unwillingness to tap our own oil, gas, nuclear, hydroelectric and coal to end dependence on foreign energy suppliers.

As a result, crude oil reached almost $70 per barrel a few days ago and is now at $69...which is more than double what it was when the Marxist O'Bomber took over the White House.

These foreign producers know solar and wind power can't make a dent in US energy needs and there's nothing to fear with O'Bomber in the White House and his Marxist crew in the Congress. Energy independence is not a threat to these producers because O'Bomber isn't going to permit the US to become energy independent of the rest of the world...including those in the middle east and O'Bomber's pal Hugo Chavez.

The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

Associated Press

Henry Waxman
For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A14

posted June 27, 2009 04:46 AM         

if you like jwhop i will kit you out with a little black box that makes the wheels on your meters go BACKWARDS and saves a ton of bill money. then you can rave it up and still have some retirement money left over!

another thing i discovered over in HELL was that there are a lot of things we americans don't know how to do for ourselves that our socialist-prisoner brethren take for granted. maybe that is why they consider us spoiled brats? affectionately of course (in some cases).

posted June 27, 2009 01:08 PM         

Now, exactly what are you talking about here?

posted June 27, 2009 01:58 PM         

i wonder what you say to people from other countries who describe americans to you as fat, selfish, dumb and tasteless? do you think that because they have read a bunch of articles that describe us that way, and seen some of us wandering round gaping at the old buildings and quaint surroundings, experienced our servicemen as loud and randy - and heard about how greedy our capitalists are, that that necessarily makes it so?

posted June 27, 2009 05:26 PM         

It was late Friday when the House passed legislation that would, for the first time, require limits on pollution blamed for global warming — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Now the Senate has the chance to change the way Americans produce and use energy.

What would the country look like a decade from now if the House-passed bill — or, more likely, a water-down version — were to become the law of the land?

"It will open the door to a clean energy economy and a better future for America," President Barack Obama said Saturday.

But what does that mean to the average person?

Energy touches every corner of the economy and in countless ways can alter people's lives.

Such a law would impact how much people pay to heat, cool and light their homes (it would cost more); what automobiles they buy and drive (smaller, fuel efficient and hybrid electric); and where they will work (more "green" jobs, meaning more environmentally friendly ones).

Critics of the House bill brand it a "jobs killer." Yet it would seem more likely to shift jobs. Old, energy-intensive industries and businesses might scale back or disappear. Those green jobs would emerge, propelled by the push for nonpolluting energy sources.

That could mean making or installing solar panels, repairing wind turbines, producing energy-efficient light bulbs, working for an environmental engineering firm or waste recycler, making equipment that harnesses carbon from coal burning and churning out energy-saving washing machines or air conditioners.

Assembly line workers at factories that made gas-guzzling cars might see their future in producing the next generation of batteries or wind turbine blades — an emerging shift, though on a relatively small scale today. On Wall Street, commodity brokers would trade carbon pollution credits alongside oil futures.

Farmers would see the cost of fertilizer and electricity go up. More windmills would dot their pastures. And a new source of income could come from selling pollution credits by planting trees or changing farming methods to absorb more carbon dioxide.

Energy would cost more because it would become more expensive to produce. For the first time there would be a price on the greenhouse gas pollution created when coal, natural gas or oil are burned. Energy companies would have to pay for technologies that can capture the carbon emissions, purchase pollution allowances or shift to cleaner energy sources.

It all costs.

Investors would see a new line item on companies financial reports: the cost of carbon permits.

Some increases would be reflected in the prices of goods and services, economics say. It might mean shelling out more for a toy because plastic, a petroleum based product, is more expensive, or paying more for a house because of new efficiency requirements.

Not all the higher energy cost would show up in people's utility bills. Households, as well as business and factories — including those, for example, making plastic for toys — could use less energy, or at least use it more efficiently. The poorest of homes could get a government check as a rebate for high energy costs. That money would come from selling pollution allowances for industry.

Energy experts in government and industry say a price on carbon pollution would lead to new ways to make renewable energy less expensive, while emphasizing how people can use it more wisely.

Potential changes to how homes are built and even financed seem likely as energy efficiency is taken into account in building codes and the cost of mortgages. With the cost of energy increasing, homeowners and businesses would have greater incentive to use more energy efficient lighting, windows and insulation.

But don't think that the traditional sources of energy would disappear.

Coal, which today accounts for half the electricity produced, would continue as a major energy source, though a less polluting one, energy experts forecast. That would mean capturing the carbon released when coal is burned.

It's a technological hurdle with a complication: "not in my back yard" complaints over what to do with the billions of tons of carbon dioxide captured from power plants and pumped beneath the earth. Would people feel comfortable having it stored near or under their homes, factories and businesses?

Scientists studying climate change say carbon capture from power plants is essential if the country is to take up the challenge against global warming.

The cleaner energy economy also put nuclear energy front and center. Does the U.S. build new power plants? If so, where, and where does all the waste go? Nuclear energy makes up about one-fifth of the nation's electricity today.

The House-passed bill contains provisions to make it easier to get loan guarantees and expands the nuclear industry's access to loans for reactor construction. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis that shows modest future costs from a low-climate energy world assumes a significant expansion of nuclear energy. The Senate could add more incentives for the nuclear industry.

posted June 29, 2009 12:04 AM         

"another thing i discovered over in HELL was that there are a lot of things we americans don't know how to do for ourselves that our socialist-prisoner brethren take for granted. maybe that is why they consider us spoiled brats? affectionately of course (in some cases)."

posted June 29, 2009 04:02 PM         

as long as you keep your "boxes" intact you are part of the problem not the solution.

posted June 29, 2009 06:48 PM         

Excuse me katatonic but you show you know nothing about the less tax, smaller government, less spending movement at all.

This is not a politically aligned movement but rather the people involved cut across political lines.

posted June 29, 2009 07:27 PM         

i think katatonic has displayed on numberous occasions that she is for smaller government and less spending movement. remember charity starts at home. the change always begins inside of us and then outward.

your one to talk about keeping boxes intact. what you don't see is maybe not everyone is evil that doesn't vote a straight conservative ticket. a lot of people including myself want something different than either party brings to the table. that is what i pick up on what she is putting down. when you really ultimately want the same things and argue from the box, it serves no purpose.

posted June 29, 2009 10:23 PM         

My people are not lining up according to party.

It's these broad sweeping statements which I object to and especially since katatonic doesn't know a damned thing about me...or "my people"

posted June 29, 2009 10:25 PM         

but rather than drawing more lines in the sand, why don't you educate me about the movement? i know it is supposed to be grassroots but unfortunately it is supported and advertised big time by the kings of spin, fox media. who pay the flappers to work people up into a frenzy that produces nothing but bad feeling.

but i truly would love to hear something positive instead of all the moaning sky-is-falling stuff i've seen here.

posted June 29, 2009 11:03 PM         

The facts are that most people on earth don't like Marxist Socialists or any of the other collectivists.

O'Bomber and his lying Marxist pals in Congress are in the process of reminding people exactly why Socialists aren't to be trusted anywhere near the levers of power in any government.

posted June 30, 2009 12:43 AM         

like i said, rather than drawing more lines in the sand, ie thinking inside the box, why not educate me on the positive side of what you are trying to do?

posted June 30, 2009 09:37 AM         

It took millennia to sort out what works best in government, in economics and in law to produced successful, civilized societies. Those lines you and other leftists talk about as though they're just lines in the sand, useless appendages of bygone eras is really an attack on civilization.

"My people", as you term them, cut across political lines of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. You will not find Socialists of any stripe among "my people". Socialists are at their base anti-civilization and they prove it over and over by destroying every nation where they gain control of the government.

Now katatonic, when are you going to get around to providing examples of what British citizens do for themselves...that Americans can't do?

posted June 30, 2009 02:13 PM         

once again you presume to judge me while telling me i know nothing about you...but calling me names is not a very good sales pitch...though i know you consider me not worth pitching to - did you threaten and insult your clients when you were in the market?

it occurs to me, jwhop, that though you have spent a good deal more time talking to me than to obama, you continue to talk as if you knew his innermost thoughts while telling me i know nothing of yours. it doesn't wash.

posted June 30, 2009 03:41 PM         

You can bet your rear end I have a problem with all that and with O'Bomber who is a stone Marxist Socialist you and others here supported. We are not going to get together and sing Kumbaya.

As for the US being a "young" nation; we've been around as a nation more than 230 years. You overlook the fact WE are from all over the world including some of those "old" cultures.

posted June 30, 2009 05:23 PM         

"The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom (UK), that had originated with the overseas colonies and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1922, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world's population,[1] and covered more than 13,000,000 square miles (33,670,000 km²): approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area."

just two little exceptions to that longest -running claim.

as to the rest of your assumptions well enjoy telling yourself you are right...it doesn't describe OR affect me. you can continue pontificating and judging all you like.

posted July 02, 2009 09:21 AM         

While you were busily attempting to refute what I said, you missed the operative words.

Let me bolden those word for you and perhaps you'll be able to comprehend what I actually said.

"Nevertheless, the US has the longest SURVIVING government on earth in CONTINUOUS operation."

"just two little exceptions to that longest -running claim...katatonic"

There are NO exceptions to what I said.

July 02, 2009
Taking the hot air out of wind power
By Chris Bell

The idea of wind generated electric energy is being sold by environmentalists as an overlooked opportunity to reduce greenhouse gasses. Global warming advocates claim that this discounted treasure could be a major part of an effort to reduce the burning of fossil fuels and eliminate the need for some of our nuclear power plants.

Is it true that we are passing up on a gold mine of renewable energy in favor of unnecessary and harmful fossil and nuclear fuels?

Let's start by looking at what we use to generate the power we use today. Renewables, such as wind, solar, biomass, etc, provide 2.4% of our electricity. The bulk of our power, 51%, comes from coal, followed by natural gas at 20% and nuclear at 19%.

Included below in the category "other renewables", wind energy is currently supplying about 1% of our electricity

Can we replace coal and natural gas with renewable energy sources? Let's examine the facts.

Wind energy is harnessed by windmills that are similar to the types that have been around for centuries. The windmills that produce electricity are called wind turbines; they employ fan blades that turn when the wind is blowing. These blades are connected to electric generators.

Keep in mind that sometimes the wind blows slowly or not at all, and windmills don't produce any power until the wind reaches about 8 MPH. A location for a windmill is not considered viable unless wind speeds average 14 MPH.

The percentage of its rated power that a windmill can actually produce, given the variation of wind speeds at the installation site, is called its capacity factor. A realistic capacity factor is 25%. That means that over time, the windmill actually delivers 25% of its rated power.

(Electrical energy is measured in units called watts. A kilowatt (KW) is 1,000 watts, a megawatt (MW) is a million watts. )

A typical large wind-driven turbine is rated at about 1,500 kilowatts. It's 350 feet tall and has a fan blade of about 240 feet in diameter. It will actually deliver about 375 kilowatts. It can power about 375 microwave ovens, or 6250 60-watt light bulbs simultaneously (only when the wind is blowing at about 25 miles per hour, which is a very strong wind). An average (1 gigawatt) power plant can power nearly a million microwaves, or 16 million light bulbs at the same time.

A power plant near me produces 1,100,000 kilowatts (1.1 gigawatts) of power. At a 25% capacity factor it would take nearly 2600 large wind turbines to produce the same power as this nuclear power plant. And this is not a particularly large plant.

If you placed these 2600 wind turbines the recommended 5 rotor-blade diameters apart, they would stretch for 600 miles. That's as far as the distance from Michigan to Georgia. In practice wind turbines are not placed single file, they are placed in several rows, like crops, in what are called wind farms, but you get the idea.

The amount of electricity generated by a wind turbine is proportional to the wind speed to the 3rd power (a 20 MPH wind will produce 8 times as much energy as a 10 MPH wind). Therefore wind turbines often produce energy in bursts; when the wind gusts, the energy output spikes, when the wind dies down, energy output dips.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to store these bursts of energy for later use. There are no batteries large enough that are also practical, and pumped-storage systems, which use unwanted energy to pump water into an aboveground reservoir for later use in turning a water-driven generator, require a large body of water.

And when there is no wind, windmills produce no power, so a traditional power plant must be operational at all times to provide power during those in-between times.

Also, most areas of the country have so little wind that wind turbines are not practical. As indicated in the wind resource map below, most of best energy-producing wind power areas are located far from population centers. The white areas are those that don't have fast enough winds to make wind power viable.

[img]http://www.americanthinker.com/Chris%20Bell%202.JPG[/img

Wind power does work. It is a clean and renewable source of energy. But it does have it's limitations; we would have to have wind turbines stretching from sea to sea to equal the energy output we can get from traditional power plants, and they would only be a match for conventional power plants when the winds were strong. On calm days they would produce no energy.

And since most of the power would be generated in unpopulated areas, because that's where the strong winds are, (see map above) we would have to incur huge losses to transport this energy to where it is needed.

And after all that, we would still need to maintain our current system of traditional power plants because we would have to have a backup source for when the wind is calm.

And since the traditional power plants can't be turned on and off like a light bulb, it will be necessary to use the traditional power plants to provide the bulk of our power and use the wind generated power to supplement the power plants.

All things considered, wind power has limitations that will relegate it to a role as a supplementary, not a primary, source of our electrical energy.

posted July 02, 2009 09:41 AM         

if we could find a way to beam infrared light from the satelittes in place onto the highways to maintain a moderate temperature they would need less repair, reamin free of snow and ice and last longer.

see, not practical. solar sensors, not practical, wind turbines, not practical.

i got nothing, the best i can do is live as green as i can and recyle and plant trees and bushes.

pear tree, blueberry bush, raspberry bush this year.