House Dems turn out the lights but GOP keeps talking

[quote name='Ruined']You're right. The blame does lie squarely on each and every one of us for allowing a Democrat-majority Congress to be elected that would rather see the American people go broke at the pump than see Otto the Sea Otter get evicted.[/quote]
States choose not to allow drilling off their coasts. You *do* support states' rights, right?

I take full responsibility by planning to vote for representatives that care about the American people more than environmental lobbyists, and hopefully everyone else will take on that responsibility as well.
Click to expand...
Is there some imaginary grand audience you're faking it for or are you this crazy?

Its no coincidence that the biggest gas crisis in 30+ years happens right after the Democrats regain control of congress and have a shot at getting the presidency, too; they want us to go broke at the pump to satisfy their environmental lobbyists
Click to expand...
What a shill.

You can continue with the self-flogging if you wish, though, if you like the taste of that type of kool-aid :)
Click to expand...
Nevermind. There's nothing about you that strikes me as reasonable. I'm through with you.

*edit* just realized you're the one that opened that Hannity thread. What a worthless turd.

[quote name='KingBroly']This Congress sucks far worse than the previous Congress. Period.[/QUOTE]
lollers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by Ruined

I take full responsibility by planning to vote for representatives that care about the American people more than environmental lobbyists, and hopefully everyone else will take on that responsibility as well.

[quote name='speedracer']Is there some imaginary grand audience you're faking it for or are you this crazy?[/quote]

Perhaps he voted for Democrats in 2006 thinking they would fix things such as Iraq, oil prices or the mortgage crisis and he now has voter remorse. I have voter's remorse over voting for Bush in 2000. Of course, I don't know if I could have voted for Gore anyways.
 
Perhaps he voted for Democrats in 2006 thinking they would fix things such as Iraq, oil prices or the mortgage crisis and he now has voter remorse. I have voter's remorse over voting for Bush in 2000. Of course, I don't know if I could have voted for Gore anyways.
Click to expand...

I think everyone feels that way. I think most people that voted for Bush feel bad about it. But then again, with Gore I'm sure we'd be paying close to $10 a gallon, have converted our currency to a carbon credit based system, and probably be paying a good 10-20% higher taxes. But hey, on the bright side we'd probably have free shitty health care, faster internet, and a strong and proud Sadaam regime still going strong. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If you mean the "fast breeder" reactors that are used in a handful of countries outside the US, then yes. Since they require far less fuel, I would assume they produce far less waste. I believe dafoomie knows more about this than me.

However, the opposition to nuke plants is even greater than it is for offshore drilling.

[/quote]

As for wind power, I think it's great (but like the drilling) I don't see why both options can't be viable. You're right that waste is a problem, but it can be safely stored, it's not like they're dumping it in the ocean or anything. To opposition to nuclear power is a baffling one, if France can embrace nuclear power (76% of their energy comes from it) America can, it would just take some educating.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

Also, I think wind power has significant advantages over nuke.

1. The time to build a windmill is 6 months. The time to build a nuke plant is 5 to 10 years.
Click to expand...

6 months for one, but how about 1000 or 10000. San Francisco alone would need 1000 windmills to run the city. It would be just over a billion dollars, which is nice, but for a little over 2 billion a nuclear plant could be built that produces twice as much in about 5-7 years (new plants in other countries do not take 10 years to build, they take half that, most due to less regulations during construction). So the cost is about the same for the amount of power produced for nuke and wind. The big advantage that comes to mind is longevity, according to your links turbines have a 20 year lifetime, we have nuclear power plants that have been going nearly 60 years.

2. A wind power program is a wind power program. A nuke power program can be used to create nuclear weapons. That's why the war drums are beating for Iran.
Click to expand...

Sure, it can be used for it. But really, do you think if we doubled the amount of plants in America that our nuclear armament would double.

3. A wind power plant costs hundreds of thousands to build while a nuke power plant costs billions. Even though the cost to produce per kWh is smaller for nuke, the cost per kWh to the consumer can be the same.
Click to expand...

Gotta give you that one, already talked about it above.

4. A wind power plant can be in the middle of the woods if the tower is built 100-150 above the trees.
Click to expand...

2 things, I don't want my forests littered with turbines, plus I don't see they could construct them without being detrimental to the forest while being built. I assume that building these turbines would cost a lot more than the kind they stick out on a farm.

5. While nuke and wind are both carbon neutral processes, nuke is exothermic while wind is endothermic. Assuming global warming (or climate change or whatever term environmental wackos are using) is real, wind draws power out of the environment. It can be used as a hand brake of sorts for global climate.

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/oandm.htm

http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/conference/HCE4/HCE4_PPTs/Wind.pdf
Click to expand...

Global climate change is the hip lingo these days ;)

Nuclear power would act as a hand brake of sorts as well.

Again, I don't think it has to be a one or the other solution, why can't we build more plants and more turbines.


Regarding offshore drilling, it is still a bad idea. If we went in debt $300 billion a year to convert as many cars to electric instead of "surging" in Iraq or ceding control of Afghanistan back to the Taliban, we wouldn't import any more oil (for transportation) in 4 years and there'd no more oil imported for anything in 8 years. I can show you the math.
Click to expand...

By all means show me the numbers, I'll look at 'em.



[quote name='evanft']No, they're really not.[/QUOTE]

C'mon now, are you really going to argue that the only reason for offshore drilling to for a possible short term price dip?
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']
By all means show me the numbers, I'll look at 'em.
[/quote]

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178087&page=3
Post #44

In response to me stating earlier...

We don't have to go off oil tomorrow. For vehicular travel purposes only... I can get the country off of oil imports in 4 years and completely off of oil in 8 years. Do you want the math?


Originally Posted by daroga
I would like to see the math, actually.

Absolutely. That's a more than fair request.

If you find a flaw in the math or a piece of data, pounce on it.

The United States has roughly 300 million people.

20% are under the age of 15 and are not allowed to drive cars. That leaves 240 million people including prison inmates and oddballs who walk and bike to work.

If nobody carpools or takes public transportation AND a person can only drive 1 car at a time, there are roughly 240 million cars in the United States.

As I've stated earlier, an electric car conversion requires $10,000. Federal and some state rebates exist, but we'll ignore those and possible costs overruns for the car's conversion.

We spend $300 billion per year on Iraq and Afghanistan to keep them "stabilized". (Also, the Pentagon and other Defense agencies request up to another $200 billion behind closed doors. However, I don't need that extra money to make the math work.)

$300 billion divided by $10,000 per car equals 30 million cars.

For every converted car, there is a savings on energy (see my 8:03AM post) of $200 (15kWh car fueled by solar cells) - $1300 (10kWh car fueled by coal plants overnight). These savings are rolled back into the conversion process next year to allow more cars to be converted. (Think interest on a bank account.)

SO...

End of Year 1: 30,000,000 electric cars
End of Year 2: 61,125,000 electric cars
End of Year 3: 93,375,000 electric cars
End of Year 4: 125,625,000 electric cars
End of Year 5: 157,875,000 electric cars
End of Year 6: 190,125,000 electric cars
End of Year 7: 222,375,000 electric cars
End of Year 8: 254,625,000 electric cars

The US uses 25% of the world's oil and produces 10% of the world's oil. 80% of the oil is used to push cars from point A to point B. The other 20% is used to make plastic bottles, fertilizer and pesticides to support highly inefficient and lazy monoculture agriculture (a different rant for a different time) and other products. The big picture equation is (10%/25%)/80%=50%. In other words, 50% of 240 million cars have to be converted to electric (120 million cars).

As you can see above, 120 million cars is reached just before EOY4. In the grand scheme of things at EOY4, the US would be using 15% of the world's oil and producing 10% of the world's oil. So, there is net import of oil BUT those imports can be used for something other than pushing cars from point A to point B.

For vehicular travel purposes only... off of oil imports in 4 years

More importantly, the entire US car population is converted to electric before EOY8. In the grand scheme of things at EOY8, the US would be using 5% of the world's oil and producing 10% of the world's oil. There is still oil being used BUT it isn't for pushing cars from point A to point B.

For vehicular travel purposes only... off of oil in 8 years

There's the math. Please point out any flaws.

...

Before somebody complains again that an electric car can't be bought as readily as a gas guzzler, I understand that.

Big Oil and Big Auto are as close your hand and your forearm. Both like it that way. Big Oil keeps the demand for its product high. Big Auto doesn't have to figure out how to make money on electric cars that have significantly lower maintenance costs than gas guzzlers.

Big Oil and Big Auto have inertia (and many, many government officials) on their side, not the math or logic.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']5. While nuke and wind are both carbon neutral processes, nuke is exothermic while wind is endothermic. Assuming global warming (or climate change or whatever term environmental wackos are using) is real, wind draws power out of the environment. It can be used as a hand brake of sorts for global climate.[/QUOTE]

I've never heard that mentioned about wind power before. Do you have a link to something that says this? I'd be interested in reading it (thanks for the other links, those were interesting as well, especially the first one about Danish wind power).
 
[quote name='speedracer']States choose not to allow drilling off their coasts. You *do* support states' rights, right?[/QUOTE]

That's what's at issue, the right to be allowed to drill off our coasts. Right now Congress prevents most states from doing so (places like Louisiana and Texas are already developed). For example, my state, Virginia, would love to allow drilling for substantial oil deposits off our coast, but Congress says no. I think we should be able to. We also have some rich uranium deposits that should be opened up for mining in SW Virginia, but that is another issue.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Perhaps he voted for Democrats in 2006 thinking they would fix things such as Iraq, oil prices or the mortgage crisis and he now has voter remorse. I have voter's remorse over voting for Bush in 2000. Of course, I don't know if I could have voted for Gore anyways.[/QUOTE]
Given that other thread, I find that difficult to believe that this is a genuine poster that just hasn't quite come to grips with 06. It's pretty damned far out to think that a Congress without super majority could get anything done with an outgoing president with no worries. These two years were destined to be he said/she said.

And anyone that voted for the Democrats in 06 to fix the mortgage crisis, oil prices, or Iraq and needed for it to happen in this span of time needs to have their head examined.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']That's what's at issue, the right to be allowed to drill off our coasts. Right now Congress prevents most states from doing so (places like Louisiana and Texas are already developed). For example, my state, Virginia, would love to allow drilling for substantial oil deposits off our coast, but Congress says no. I think we should be able to. We also have some rich uranium deposits that should be opened up for mining in SW Virginia, but that is another issue.[/QUOTE]
I genuinely mean no offense, but nobody gives a good god damn about Virginia. This is, and always will be about California oil on federal land. This whole thing (aside for a political play on behalf of the Repubs) is an excuse to try to open up California. Anyone that's in the know and tells you different is a damned liar.

Trust me. I live in the oil capital of the world (well, us and those Riyadh bitches).
 
[quote name='speedracer']I genuinely mean no offense, but nobody gives a good god damn about Virginia. This is, and always will be about California oil on federal land.[/QUOTE]

Whatever, you didn't say anything about just California. As I understand it, if California doesn't want to authorize drilling, it doesn't have to. Sounds fair to me.

Who cares about that shithole anyway? j/k

What do you have against VA anyway? I've never known Texans to be jealous of superior states.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I've never heard that mentioned about wind power before. Do you have a link to something that says this? I'd be interested in reading it (thanks for the other links, those were interesting as well, especially the first one about Danish wind power).[/quote]

I don't think there is a link. It's just an observation.

The idea is that uranium or oil are sitting somewhere underground. Effectively, they are outside of our habitat and not introducing lots of energy into the environment.

When you burn processed oil to turn a car engine or use processed uranium to boil water, you're releasing energy into the environment. That's exothermic.

For wind power, the wind is blowing at a certain speed or a set amount of energy in the environment. After the wind pushes turbine blades, the wind will be blowing at a speed slightly less than before. The difference is minuscule, but the set amount of energy in the environment is less. That's endothermic.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Whatever, you didn't say anything about just California. As I understand it, if California doesn't want to authorize drilling, it doesn't have to. Sounds fair to me.

Who cares about that shithole anyway? j/k

What do you have against VA anyway? I've never known Texans to be jealous of superior states.[/QUOTE]
It's federal land we're talking about. Normally the Californians would still get say, but the real whole point of this is to end-around on em and get their oil without their approval. They are the most anti-drilling state and it sucks that the rest of us want to do this to them to save our own necks.

Never lived in Virginia, though I was in NC for a couple of years. I liked it, well, other than Richmond and the DC burbs. Superior? You've been hangin around WVians too often :D
 
[quote name='speedracer'] They are the most anti-drilling state and it sucks that the rest of us want to do this to them to save our own necks.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, just like it sucks for Alaskans that the rest of "us" inflict our will upon Alaskans, who overwhelmingly do want more drilling and to open ANWR.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I gotta agree, they are morons.:lol:[/quote]


The Republicans or the Democrats or both? I'm going with both.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yeah, just like it sucks for Alaskans that the rest of "us" inflict our will upon Alaskans, who overwhelmingly do want more drilling and to open ANWR.[/QUOTE]
My objections to ANWR are based on different priorities, but that is certainly a point in its favor.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Given the leases the oil companies already have, why don't they drill more already?[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure this was covered in another thread. Maybe not...

Those leases are "exploratory" leases. In other words, the oil company's use to essentially look at a map, go where they thought might be oil. Stare at the ground. Then apply for a lease to see if there is oil there. But that doesn't mean there is, or is enough to be worth drilling.

It's true they have tons of unused (i.e. unproductive) leases, but they are all properties that proved to have either no oil, or not enough to be cost effective.

If there was oil on the leases they had that would be worth going after, they would be drilling it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Pretty sure this was covered in another thread. Maybe not...

Those leases are "exploratory" leases. In other words, the oil company's use to essentially look at a map, go where they thought might be oil. Stare at the ground. Then apply for a lease to see if there is oil there. But that doesn't mean there is, or is enough to be worth drilling.

It's true they have tons of unused (i.e. unproductive) leases, but they are all properties that proved to have either no oil, or not enough to be cost effective.

If there was oil on the leases they had that would be worth going after, they would be drilling it.[/QUOTE]

Yep, there was no guarantee there would be oil in the leases given and for a large percentage of the area there is no oil or not enough to make a profit off of. That argument is largely a smokescreen dems are putting out there to defend themselves w/ the American people while they cater to the agenda of the environmental lobbyists in Congress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Ruined']while they cater to the agenda of the environmental lobbyists in Congress.[/QUOTE]
Being an environmentalist is not a disease. Dismissing it out of hand is unfair.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Being an environmentalist is not a disease. Dismissing it out of hand is unfair.[/QUOTE]

I'd agree with that. I would hope everyone would consider themselves environmentalists and be conscious of pollution and preserve habitat.

I consider myself an environmentalist, as in I hate litter, I hate pollution. And I am very much for most things that reduces pollution and makes the air cleaner and saves wanton destruction of wilderness.

But I don't think that also being highly skeptical of man made "climate change" (as it now has to be called) contradicts that in any way.
 
[quote name='Ruined']That argument is largely a smokescreen dems are putting out there to defend themselves w/ the American people while they cater to the agenda of the environmental lobbyists in Congress.[/QUOTE]

Look, let's all at least try to live in a shared reality here: the "environmental lobby" doesn't have anywhere the amount of money (and therefore clout) that the oil and automotive lobbies do. If you're going to play the "special interest" card, you should probably make sure the Republicans aren't holding a hand full of them first.
 
[quote name='speedracer']It's federal land we're talking about. Normally the Californians would still get say, but the real whole point of this is to end-around on em and get their oil without their approval. They are the most anti-drilling state and it sucks that the rest of us want to do this to them to save our own necks.[/QUOTE]

Again, that's not my understanding. I thought the proposals in Congress were just to allow states who approved it to allow drilling offshore. I see nothing wrong with that and support it fully. Of course, if California or whatever state doesn't want to allow drilling, they shouldn't have to. I also think Alaska should be allowed to open ANWR to exploration if they want to.
 
The issue, I believe, is that it's off-shore enough to be considered Federal territory instead of California's. But I could be wrong.

If it was an issue of drilling in California, no chance in hell we'd be talking about this. California would likely round up the hippies in Berkley and burn them as fuel before drilling for that evil, dark, liquid embodiment of all things Capitalist and Republican.
 
[quote name='Mike23']When did you move to Fort McMurray? :lol:[/quote]Hell, all of god damn Alberta's one big oilfield, and Saskatchewan's poised to become the same way (with the exception of the far north, which is poised to become one big uranium mine). You have no idea how weird it feels to be planting spruce trees right beside an oil pumpjack.

As a side note, unburied oil pipelines sound really cool when you hit them with a shovel.
 
[quote name='trq']Look, let's all at least try to live in a shared reality here: the "environmental lobby" doesn't have anywhere the amount of money (and therefore clout) that the oil and automotive lobbies do. If you're going to play the "special interest" card, you should probably make sure the Republicans aren't holding a hand full of them first.[/QUOTE]

With gas at $4/gallon+, I think its safe to say most Americans would side with pro-drilling lobbyists over anti-drilling lobbyists. Thats not to say that some would rather buy a SmartCar to save the environment and whatnot, but I think the majority of people would take cheaper gas over less drilling.
 
[quote name='Ruined']With gas at $4/gallon+, I think its safe to say most Americans would side with pro-drilling lobbyists over anti-drilling lobbyists. Thats not to say that some would rather buy a SmartCar to save the environment and whatnot, but I think the majority of people would take cheaper gas over less drilling.[/quote]

How low will gas be after drilling is allowed?

How low will gas be after the new oil from drilling enters the market?

How long will it remain at that price given normal demand growth?

...

Let's pretend I hold the switch on whether to allow drilling or not. What are you going to give me in return?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How low will gas be after drilling is allowed?

How low will gas be after the new oil from drilling enters the market?

How long will it remain at that price given normal demand growth?

...

Let's pretend I hold the switch on whether to allow drilling or not. What are you going to give me in return?[/QUOTE]

I'm going to argue that not knowing the answers to those questions are reasons to do it, not reasons not to do it.

How much higher will gas get if we do nothing but cross our fingers and wince at the pump?
That question, to me, holds worse possible consequences to any answer to any of your posed questions.

-----------

On a side note, anyone that re-elects any of these buffoons that went on vacation before their jobs were done, deserves everything coming. How many of us could take 5 weeks off at our jobs when the company is in such bad shape and we are in the middle of the most important work in years? How many of us would keep our jobs if we did?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How low will gas be after drilling is allowed?

How low will gas be after the new oil from drilling enters the market?

How long will it remain at that price given normal demand growth?

...

Let's pretend I hold the switch on whether to allow drilling or not. What are you going to give me in return?[/QUOTE]

Of course the specific answers to those questions are unknown. But gas prices will most definitely go down immediately as the perception of the market will shift from America having its hands tied and relying on foreign oil to America starting to tap into their own natural resources. After that initial drop, within 2-6 years depending on the type of oil extraction used the significant increase in supply will result in keeping prices low.

While America cannot dominate the oil market, they can make enough of a dent to keep prices significantly lower in the long term; the simple concept that America does not have its hands tied in the oil department and is working towards foreign independence (by both increasing domestic supply and reducing demand through more efficient automobiles) will keep gas prices in check. Just attempting to reduce demand is an unrealistic approach towards lowering prices because it is impossible for everyone to switch over to more efficient cars in even a moderate period of time; we are probably talking over a decade here. Hybrids are generally $4000-$5000 more than a regular car of the same model and on top of that it involves having the money to buy a new car which many people will not have. Therefore while demand may be able to be lowered slightly, on the whole we are stuck due to the infrastructure and pricing of hybrids simply not being ready for prime time yet. Maybe ten years from now most Americans will be driving more fuel-efficient cars, but to be robbed at the pump until that date is hardly a solution.

Now, some make the argument that we will not see the effects on gas prices for many years if drilling begins. Well, aside from that being false since the market is based on perception and not supply percentages, the longer we put off drilling the farther away that date becomes. This same argument popped up ~10 years ago when prices were getting high; if we had drilling started back then, we would not be in the situation we are in today. Thus, more drilling not only helps bring down prices now due to market perception, it will also ensure they stay down in the future as we take a two-pronged effort to reduce foreign oil dependence - both an increase in drilling/supply, and a long term switch to more fuel efficient cars.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']
On a side note, anyone that re-elects any of these buffoons that went on vacation before their jobs were done, deserves everything coming. How many of us could take 5 weeks off at our jobs when the company is in such bad shape and we are in the middle of the most important work in years? How many of us would keep our jobs if we did?[/quote]

The less government does, the better.

This summer break is nothing new. It is one of many vacations the fat cats take.

The "company" is in bad shape because the "board" lets things fall apart for several years.

Offshore drilling is not the most important work in years.

The party in power (the Democrats) don't want offshore drilling. If the party in power (Republicans) want offshore drilling that bad, they should try winning some elections.
 
It's a general ban on drilling period, that is on the table, not just offshore (I believe).

And I do think the energy crisis, and any legislation dealing with it, is the most important issue we've had in a very long time.

And like any company, the employees should be fired or get severe paycuts for not getting enough done and still expecting vacations (what I wouldn't give for 5 weeks of vacation).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's a general ban on drilling period, that is on the table, not just offshore (I believe).

And I do think the energy crisis, and any legislation dealing with it, is the most important issue we've had in a very long time.

And like any company, the employees should be fired or get severe paycuts for not getting enough done and still expecting vacations (what I wouldn't give for 5 weeks of vacation).[/quote]

Isn't it a ban on drilling in new areas?

Do you think the energy crisis is more important than the Iraq war or a future war with Iran?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Isn't it a ban on drilling in new areas?[/quote]
I think so. Right. It's a ban on leasing NEW areas for exploratory drilling.

Do you think the energy crisis is more important than the Iraq war or a future war with Iran?
Click to expand...

Certainly.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I think so. Right. It's a ban on leasing NEW areas for exploratory drilling. [/quote]

On the leases already drilled on, have the oil companies published how much it would cost to extract oil?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']On the leases already drilled on, have the oil companies published how much it would cost to extract oil?[/QUOTE]

Not that I'm aware of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top