Re: schizophrenic

Irreconcilable?
Contradictory?

And how many of those screaming about $3 a gallon gas will happily pay $3 for an 8 oz cup of coffee.

Ah, fuhgeddaboudit...misspelled my own name, what do I know.

"The day they harness that simple fact -- that people want to SUPPORT something, not just OPPOSE something -- and actually get behind something positive is the day that they will once again take power in Washington. And the day they do that, they will actually DESERVE to do so."

Ethanol produced from US grown crops is something everyone can get behind. Why hasn't the Republican leadership led us in that direction as an option towards energy self-sufficency?

Good Fricking Grief - we all know why, don't we -- their too busy hand-jobbing the "big oil" lobbyists.

"And how many of those screaming about $3 a gallon gas will happily pay $3 for an 8 oz cup of coffee."

Higher gas prices tend to lift prices on everything. Those who won't scream about paying $3 a cup for their coffee will scream when it hits $3.50.

their = they're

Ethanol is another of those energy conservation progams not quite ready. The Iowa corn lobby has the US placing a $0.54/gallon or bushel (don't remember if it was before or after refining) on ethanol or corn produced outside the US. Bush has mentioned it, but there is a reason it isn't common practice---it is more expensive. Plus, the enviros well start yelling when farmers try to put more corn into production. The enviros will be hopllering about destroying the "natural order" and wildlife preservation.

Right now it actually adds to the cost per gallon of gasoline to use ethanol. Say a study the other day (less than a week ago) that showed ethanol was actually bad for the vehicles. Don't have time to look for the article, otw to a Tee Ball tourney.

Just add an oil import fee sufficient to support investment in domestic sources such as tar sands and reduce down side price volatility. Let the market take care of which solution works best and send "windfall profits" to our treasury instead of some sheik's.

Ethanol not quite ready?
Irreconcilable?
Contradictory?

GM is ready.

The Republican-led Congress should have been pushing tax incentives on this years ago. Instead they were too busy (see above).

Lee said, "Good Fricking Grief - we all know why, don't we -- their too busy hand-jobbing the "big oil" lobbyists."

Lee, what is too much profit? Do you realize that these "record profits" are based on profit margins of 8-15%?

What is Microsofts profit margin? The NY Times parent company? Starbucks? Airlines? Automobiles?

Most companies that make profits of less than 10% aren't even considered good investments by the majority of investment advisors. Granted, gasoline is a volume thing, but if they were actually gouging or in collusion don't you think they would be making at least 25%?

The stupidity of people who know nothing about markets or supply and demand continually amazes me.

You realize an oil import fee will increase the cost of gasoline? Along with every other petroleum based product?

It would be smarter to open more drilling and reduce taxes or at least shut the Hell up about "Windfall Profit Taxes"!

http://www.energybulletin.net/5062.html
A study done about the true cost to produce ethanol. Basically ethanol= more expensive; produces less energy than required to make it.

Hmmm.

Ethanol produced from US grown crops is something everyone can get behind. Why hasn't the Republican leadership led us in that direction as an option towards energy self-sufficency?

WikiPedia: E85

WikiPedia: Ethanol

Ethanol might have a future, but there are any number of issues with ethanol that still need to be addressed.

Like everything else it's not a magic bullet that'll suddenly make everything better.

Producing ethanol from corn is an idiotic idea.

Because Iceland is a volcanic island, it sits on a vast amount of geothermal energy. They're tapping it to turn into a hydrogen and presu-returbine economy.

Couldn't Hawaii and the Left Coast tap into their own thermal reserves of energy? Or Japan?

By assisting other countries off of the oil-teat, that frees up that much more oil.

msuv - ethanol will scale - and the tax incentives would have helped.

stmbuild - the windfall profits from US-produced oil should be taxed and plowed into alternatives. A large percentage of domestic gasoline is refined from oil production based in the US, and the oil companies have reaped windfall profits on that oil that originates on US soil. It's obscene, and needs to be dealt with.

Record profits = windfall. Whether the windfall should be taxed can be debated, but it is a windfall. A good explanation is linked here.

Politicians of both parties reflect our society, which tends to talk a good energy game, but doesn't walk the walk. Also, because we're good at sound bites but not math and science, as a nation we have difficulty grasping the size and complexity of our energy use. A few windmills cannot replace a nuclear power plant, for instance (A few thousand might under the right conditions - but that's a very complex undertaking in itself.)

If Wizbang readers would like an entertaining way to learn about nuclear energy, see my thriller novel "Rad Decision", based on my two decades in the US nuclear industry. Available at no cost at RadDecision.blogspot.com, readers seem to like it, judging by their comments at the homepage. Stewart Brand, the creator of The Whole Earth Catalog who has called for a second look at nuclear energy, has said: "I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read."

Oh yes - any conversation about energy use (for transportation or electricity) should start with CONSERVATION. The cheapest, safest, best energy is that which you don't use.

You forgot to add coal to the mix, that the enviroweenies don't want to be mined. They still look at open pit coal mining from the days of the Peabody Coal Company stripping off the land and did not return it to somewhat the way it was before they went there in the first place. There have been a lot of changes from the days of the old Peabody days. Now days, Peabody and the other companies take steps to insure that the land is reclaimed.

Here in Wyoming, we have enough low-sulfer coal to power the whole east coast for 200 years, if we could just get it out of the ground.

Doesn't nuclear makes more sense than coal, given the Bush administration's ignorant stance on global warming?

Wow, with all of these alternatives and their associated lobbyists the Republicans in Congress are going to need a lot more lube.

So, Lee, you point as always is...
IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF THE BUSHPUBLICANS

"So, Lee, you point as always is... IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF THE BUSHPUBLICANS"

Oh no, of course not. The author of this post tries to make the case that it's ALL THE FAULT OF THE DEMOCRATS, but we both know that's not true -- right?

There are so many people with different agendas to be anti and pro ethanol, I don't trust what any of the big players might have to say.

I don't even want to talk to this guy, but I do want to talk to someone who's used his plans and see what they have to say. If there's even a 50% truth to the prices claimed, I would have to wonder why we're not E85 already.

Because I have the same feeling about more drilling in US assets as a I have about dipping into the strategic reserves. Yes things are bad now but they could be made much worse. What if 5-10-15 years from now there's a nuclear war in the Middle East and the World's supply is choked down to a fraction for years? Or even worse, someone takes over the Middle East and uses all that oil to blackmail the world and counts on nuclear weapons to keep the rest of the world at bay.

Do we want that oil available to us now or then? If anything we should be exploring and putting on hold drilling for a rainy day. The Strategic reserve should be much much bigger. Its like running out of groceries and digging into the supplies you set aside for an emergency days before a Huricane hits.

Reducing oil dependancy is becoming urgent for our security, even if it isn't the low cost path.

Doesn't nuclear makes more sense than coal

Absolutely enjoy hearing about how ignorant environmentalists are about nuclear power -- really love it. Once again demonstrates that the anti-environmentalists are fueled by inferiority and ultimately headed for the dumpster. (Remember telling us a decade ago that there was absolutely no such thing as global warming, that it was just a Gaian tree-hugger fantasy? You motherfuckers.)

What nuclear power fans never acknowledge is that, while nuclear done right is "clean & safe," the nuclear plant itself, wherever you build it, will only last about 25-30 years before the thing has to be decommissioned.

Put your tight little brains around that, ya dinks: it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, last about as long as yer average septic leech field, then it will have to be decommissioned -- and that ain't cheap. Go talk to the people of Wiscasset, Maine. Suddenly there's a big hole in their municipal budget.

And you can't use the site once the decommissioning is done, deary, not for a long time.

You can call this moonbat propaganda, because you're in a place where neocons with short resumes and cheap degrees are invited to vent bile on whatever blue state red herrings Jay and Kevin can scare up in a given week. It's what drives the whole talk radio thing: focus on leftward weirdness and idiocy, ignore the successes and the hard facts that bare out those "stupid" environmental warnings.

Well, it don't signify, as they say in Patrick O'Brian novels: this is history; this is fact. Call me any name you want, make fun of me. But if you build a nuclear power plant, the thing will eventually have to be decommissioned. You can sleeve the plumbing for just so long and then it all goes bye-bye, no longer safe to operate.

And that's the truth, and you would know it -- if you weren't actually engaged in convincing yourselves that the truth can only originate from one political compass point.

Shit. Now I'm going to get swine prints all over my pearls.

astifaga wrote- "The nuclear plant itself, wherever you build it, will only last about 25-30 years before the thing has to be decommissioned."
http://www.tva.gov/sites/brownsferry.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns_Ferry

Browns Ferry Nuclear power plant- commissioned in 1973
Earliest reactor to be decommissioned is 2013. If my math is correct that would be 40 years of life from a single reactor(granted the reactor is down for repairs, but there are two other 30 year old reactors there as well).

From Lee:

Record profits = windfall. Whether the windfall should be taxed can be debated, but it is a windfall. A good explanation is linked here.[Link found in comment above]

*Corporations don't pay taxes. Yes, they do, in the short term, but where did the money come from? It came from the monies that they took in exchange for their goods- from the consumers that paid for them. A 'windfall tax' goes to the government, not back into the business. Kinsey seems to be arguing that the windfall should go to defray costs of the war. How does that help the oil supply, or increase production?

*What are profits used for? When oil was around $17/bbl, it didn't make sense for producers to attend to wells in the US that were costing more than that to produce. When prices are higher, it does. Shell just announced that they are building the largest refinery in the world. Where does that money come from? PROFITS. Bush announced that he wants the excess profits to be put back into increased production capacity and development. If, and when, they are allowed to develop new fields, offshore or on land in the US, they will be.

Couple of other points you make in different comments:

Ethanol produced from US grown crops is something everyone can get behind. Why hasn't the Republican leadership led us in that direction as an option towards energy self-sufficency?

Doesn't nuclear makes more sense than coal, given the Bush administration's ignorant stance on global warming?

All these discussions on alternatives are good, but they do nothing -nothing- to solve the current mess we are in, now. All they promote is the line, Bush-bad, Liberal-good. All talk, no do.

Hmmm.

Record profits = windfall. Whether the windfall should be taxed can be debated, but it is a windfall.

Frankly the level of ignorance shown by Lee is amazing.

Here's a clue for you. The reason why they're being called "windfall" is because the energy companies have usually sucked ass when it comes to ROI. Blue chip, yes. Great investments? No.

And a 6%-10% profit margin is utter crap. And there's fucking Lee out there wanting to take it away.

Tell us all Lee, just why anybody would bother investing money into energy companies if they don't actually make a fucking profit? With WHAT would these energy companies invest in oil fucking shale? Where would they get the fucking money?

You're out here screaming about alternative energy and yet the very companies that you demand to accomplish this are being emasculated by ... you. Don't you frigging understand that it takes money to make shit happen? So you take their fucking profits away. Now fucking what? How on earth are they supposed to fucking pay for all this shit you want?

How about it Lee? And don't talk out of your ass this time, actually pull yourself together and write something worthwhile that actually includes logic.

And while you're at it why don't you explain why anybody would want to fucking invest in energy supply when the threat of having their extremely risky investments taxed into oblivion if they dare to actually fucking work.

Dumbass.

Hmmmm.

And for all you liberals out there that just fucking discovered nuclear power I've got one fucking to say about it:

Yucca Mountain

What a frigging pain in the ass this whole subject is. Liberals demanding results with the one hand and then blocking any efforts at actually accomplishing them with the other.

I'm going to make some homemade pasta, decaf orange blossom tea and ignore this discussion because it's really pissing me off.

Judging by the comments here, I think we won't solve the energy problem any time soon.

I think we all CAN agree, however, on the fact that people can always come up with a reason not to do something while blaming the other side for the fact that the problem isn't getting solved.

Hmmmm.

What nuclear power fans never acknowledge is that, while nuclear done right is "clean & safe," the nuclear plant itself, wherever you build it, will only last about 25-30 years before the thing has to be decommissioned.

No shit asshole.

But what exactly is left to decommission? The fucking CONCRETE and rebar of the containment and control buildings.

So who gives a rat's ass if a nuclear power plant needs to be decommissioned in 40 years? That's 40 fucking years of producing megawatts of power dumbass. And the decommissioning process isn't exactly an impossible job either.

Here's yet another fucking liberal screaming about getting shit done and yet standing in the fucking way.

astigafa said:

What nuclear power fans never acknowledge is that, while nuclear done right is "clean & safe," the nuclear plant itself, wherever you build it, will only last about 25-30 years before the thing has to be decommissioned.
Put your tight little brains around that, ya dinks: it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, last about as long as yer average septic leech field, then it will have to be decommissioned -- and that ain't cheap. Go talk to the people of Wiscasset, Maine. Suddenly there's a big hole in their municipal budget.

the man who makes waves said:
"How does creating a gallon of product that generates less energy fix our current problems?"

I'm not buying into your argument that it is a net loss to produce ethanol, but it is clear that it is way past due the time we focus on more than short-term solutions. Fixing our current problems isn't the answer.

and then the man who makes waves said:
"I just want to ask, do you really believe that the Bush administration is the culprit in not building more nuclear facilities?"

I believe that during a time when one political party controls both the White House and Congress that this political party bears the principal blame for the lack of progress in this area, yes.

BTW, that's 8 reactors total in 3 different locations. Oconee has 3, and #3 is currently licensed through 2034.

Lee said:

I'm not buying into your argument that it is a net loss to produce ethanol, but it is clear that it is way past due the time we focus on more than short-term solutions. Fixing our current problems isn't the answer.

I believe that during a time when one political party controls both the White House and Congress that this political party bears the principal blame for the lack of progress in this area, yes.

Sounds like you subscribe to the Adam Savage credo of Mythbusters fame, I refuse to accept your reality and substitute my own.

Deja Vu: I had this exact same discusion with my liberal friend the on Friday. And I brought up the same points Jay did, the only two Jay left unsaid were BANANA and NIMBY. I also brought up Ethanol and Brazil and the one thing we agreed on was it was far more efficient to produce ethanol from SUGAR CANE than corn by any measure, but of course, the ag lobby has that argument sewn up for corn via tariffs against cane imports and subsidies to farmers to NOT produce corn. My one point is, it is far easier to lobby AGAINST (a solution) than it is to lobby FOR (a solution) Those AGAINST can raise all sorts of spectres of disasters (negatives - easier to envision), than possible benefits (postives - harder to imagine). The environmental lobby has so cowed congress that paralysis is the effect. The BANANA crowd has won.

Ethanol bad for cars? Only those OLD cars (like my 34 yr old jeep). Ethanol and old cars do not mix. It dissolves old rubber and gaskets. I found that out. Newer vehicles were designed with alchohol based fuels in mind.

wave_guy -- 2003-2006??? How much more relevancy and reality do you need?

Thanks for proving my point, dude.

From Lee:

Thanks for proving my point, dude.

Thanks for proving my point, dude. Now go stick your head back in the sand before it explodes.