Get Real About Gas Prices

Todd,

When Jane Fonda starred in The China Syndrome and after Three Mile Island, environmentalists and hysterics got the upper hand and nuclear power slowed down.

You are correct that, today we could definitely build them safer, smaller and we can dispose of the waste.

I find it amusing that the Left loves France and are so envious of their lazy lifestyle.  70% of France's power comes from nuclear technology.  

For almost 50 years, submarines have been powered with nuclear reactors and there have not been any major incidents that I recall.

If we built those plants, they should have extra shielding to avoid a meltdown.  Many liberals point to Chernobyl but the melt down there was due to a series of boondoggles and compounding circumstances.  That technology was decades behind ours at the time.

If we can build it safer, I say that it should be an integral part of the energy equation and solution.  The Left wants to spend money on alternative energy, would they support research to find a way to make nuclear waste harmless?  I doubt it....they like the wind and the Sun.

While most Americans want to drill for oil and natural gas, develop safe nuclear, clean coal AND alternative energy sources, Democrats and the Left want to throw the baby out with the bath water and cause hardship in a "see I told you so" penalty and chase rainbows.

Bottom line Todd......no other currently known alternative energy beyond nuclear produces the necessary BTU's to maintain our lifestyles and needs.  If it was out there, someone would be doing it to make a bunch of money.  It is nice to dream but the reality is that we need to drill and use nuclear. 

By drilling it sends a signal to world markets that we will not be held hostage.  The market will readjust itself.  Yes George HW Bush did do that and George W Bush supported it as well but he now understands that we must drill.  Just because you once took a position on some subject does not mean that you are stuck with that forever and you are a "flip flopper"; especially on this topic.

Why is it always either / or with you people on the Left?

Blood for oil??????  Yes that theory is right up their with 9-11 was an inside job, Dennis Kucinich saw aliens, we have suspended habeas corpus for citizens, George Bush lied about the war (even though everyone else believed the intelligence) and the moon is made out of Swiss cheese.  Can progressives make reasoned arguments or is everything a conspiracy?????

So you want to put the horse in the barn and go cold turkey?  OK, I will go along with that but let's test it on you.  No more power from oil, no fuel for your car, heat for your home, food that was produced with the help of oil.  You should sit and wait for the alternative.....good luck! 

Judy,

You have to understand that organizations like MoveOn.org feed this propaganda to willing participants every single day.........

The Left has one thing over the Right.......they are organized in the propaganda department and have numerous outlets on the Web for disinformation.

Now if you came up with some facts and they were from a conservative website, they would tell you that the information was garbage.

Heck, I have shown Michael facts about things and he replies,  "so?"  There is no use in getting worked up as people believe what they want.

Next they will tell us that the World Trade Center was an inside job and those were remote controlled aircraft that hit the buildings and George Bush himself set the charges.  People are just out of touch with reality.

Thanks for your support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

"Next they will tell us that the World Trade Center was an inside job and those were remote controlled aircraft that hit the buildings and George Bush himself set the charges. "

I've actually heard that one, Bill.    Didn't you know, those were not passenger planes that hit the WTC, and it was a missle (one of our own, of course) that hit the Pentagon? 

It would be Hilarious if it wasn't so ludicrous!!              

Oh, yes, even though there were witnesses who saw the plane hit and people on cell phones talking to loved ones who were killed...they persist....

I know, they are on some island like in LOST! My goodness.....I have figured it out!!!!

Let's call MoveOn.org and give them the good news......"Bush lied and people didn't die", they are being held captive on an island somewhere so that we think their planes actually did crash.

I believe that the affliction is called psychosis.

Here is a quote from an oil executive that I pulled from the internet this morning. The Democrats are claiming that oil companies already have leases that they are not using.

This says it all:

Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute:

CAVANEY: Well, we are developing. And there's a big misunderstanding. If they understood the industry, they would appreciate the fact that we bid for those leases competitively in the open market. We pay the government to get them.

We have to pay annual lease fees on those particular leases. And at the end of the lease term -- five years, six years, whatever it may be -- if we haven't done anything on those leases, they go back to the government to be bid again.

What's going on is they -- the first step in our industry is called exploration. In other words, the creator didn't put oil and gas on every plot of land. So we have to go and explore.

We're willing to put our capital at risk to find out whether or not there's oil and gas there. And there's been very few cases where there is oil and gas in amounts that are commercially usable. And those are the ones that you can develop.

The rest of them, why drill where you know there's no oil or gas? And let those things go back to the government.

Now the Left is claiming that these hold 4.8 million barrells and want them developed now. ANWR could contain 10 times that but the same Left says that is not enough to go after. What is it??? Enough or not enough????

Beyond that, we know there are huge reserves off of the continental shelf and Congress won't allow drilling there, due to the environment but some of the leases that Congressmen are saying: "drill or we'll take those back" are closer to the shore than the continental shelf.

Hypocrites...all.   I hear the crickets!!!!   Funny how that works when they know they are on the wrong side of the debate.

Dog,

Your independence reminds me of a mix between Grizzly Adams and a hermit who lives  in the woods.

The Crawford Compromise is your idea of a great idea but it will never work.

No, I do not drive a "Hemi" and in fact use my car very little.  To determine that we can just go 'cold turkey' with energy replacement or go without might work well for someone living a a log cabin in the middle of nowhere but this is about economy.

You sound like a Free Stater in your proposals, I really don't know.  On this blog we are trying to live in the state of reality.  We have two choices....drill or starve.

Republicans are the best chance you have to remain free and conservatives are the only chance we have to retail some of those freedoms that you cherish.  You choose but know this, it takes a majority to do anything and your "compromise" leaves only one option....you are a majority of ONE.

300,000,000 people trying to live in a "post-petroleum" world is a fairy tale and would cause chaos.   It is easy for one person to say:  "I hunt and fish and live with no television or internet in a cabin in the woods and do very well living that way".  It is easy to do in "one's". 

Bill -
I was just doggin' you about the Hemi. For all I know, you're the archetypical frugal yankee, and kudos to ya if you are. Who wants to send even more of our blood money to the hacks in Concord just for cruisin' in a slick new ride?

Now on to the substance of my stance. You misinterpret the gist of my most recent screed. I don't pretend the vast majority of Americans can go cold-turkey with respect to oil/coal/wood (our lovely hydro-carbon trinity), at least not for a long while. This is what economists refer to as lag variables; it takes time for people to shift from one substitute to another, especially when it involves durable goods like furnaces, cars, houses, but it can happen and is happening already without the very visible club-hand (or is that club-foot) of Big Government. That dastardly invisible hand of price is doing quite nicely, thank you, but most are griping about it as if their shift to something new should be painless and done for them by someone else. Nice try, mamsy pamsy bambies. Now get up off your BFA and do for your self what others should not be forced to do for you.

Your "drill or starve" proclamation is a false premise, and I tend to reject such things summarily. Drilling takes time, and in the case of Alaskan North-slope crude, a lot of time. We would starve if we had to wait for that. In contrast, I do know most Americans can make substantial shifts now, and continue to make more over the coming years. They don't have to wait to add insulation to their house envelope for this coming winter, they can do that this summer, or if the mosquitos bother them (what with triple-E and West Nile, it's a real health concern, honey), wait until fall. This effort alone will save at least 25% of their sky-rocketing heating bill. For many, this will save 50%, and for the unlucky crew who have embarrassing little insulation and/or antique heating systems, they can save 75% or more without going crazy exuberantly embracing the latest in newfangled technologies, many of which I consider suspect. After these easy lay-ups of adding insulation to readily accessible areas and replacing depression era boilers, the next steps are more involved and should likely wait for major remodeling projects. But bit by bit, you can dress up your pig to perform more like a new-build green machine.

Electricity for many is also a cinch for the first 25% of savings - replace most light-bulbs with CFL's. They use 75% - 80% less electricity! Why people bitch about ever escalating electricity bills, yet remain wed to incandescent light bulbs is beyond me - I just don't get contradictions, consequently I don't feel sorry for these energy idiots. Minimize cooling by opening windows at night, and pulling cool air from the basement during the day. Fortunately, that insulation you added to reduce heating in the winter will also help you during summer heat waves. And as with heating, the next steps require more effort/cash and probably make more sense when replacing worn-out/broken appliances. Refrigerators are top of the list here, as new ones use up to 50% less energy - "generally, you don’t see that kind of behavior in a major appliance."

Regarding transportation, I think I addressed this sufficiently in my prior posting. The vast majority can make major shifts in their consumption when making their next vehicle purchase. I admit, this one will take more time as most vehicles last 10 - 20 years, so it takes time to rollover the American fleet. However, once done, we should easily burn 50% less. And through the magic of supply and demand, price will react accordingly.

Now the major benefits of this approach vs. yours of drilling more holes into Motha(!) and building "safe" nuclear power plants are several:
1. Substantially less pollution - and I'm not even talking about that mythological greenhouse gas nonsense! Imagine the pollution level now, then cut it in half - a pretty good deal, and we cut our energy bill in half to boot. And no matter how you spin it, fewer oil wells operating does translate to fewer oil spills. And oil spills do translate to the taking of other's property - just ask any Alaskan fishing Prince William Sound a few years back. So what's not to love with this burn-less approach? Come on kids, "I love this plan, I'm excited to be part of it, let's do it."
2. More independence - imagine your wallet going to a towel-headed terrorist across the globe, now cut that in half, or more given we do have some home-grown crude. And the icing on the cake - for me this is more meat and potatoes - substantially fewer tax dollars going to Uncle Satan and Auntie Governators from fuel sales taxes. Yes, I acknowledge, like the Hydra, once you cut off one head, up pops another somewhere else. Maybe they'll tax our energy saving efforts. That would be rich, wouldn't it?
3. More safety - no matter how safe you think nuclear power plants are, fewer of them is safer than more. And even if the plant is safe, more fissile material means more available to leak out to those same towel-headed terrorists of yours. Remember, I'm not one of those who thought stickin' our finger in their hornet's nest long ago was a good idea (sending troops to Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and yes, finally Iraq, and yes, sequence is important here, it was and remains about the oil). Regarding meltdowns and other risks associated with nuclear power plants, are you aware whether such enterprises can secure sufficient private insurance to cover these risks? If not, why should I involuntarily do so?
4. Speed - most people can cut their burn rate 25% in one year, and keep adding to that total as they swap out their dinosaurs for mean green machines going forward. Even the most vocal Big Oil and Nutty Nuclear cheerleaders among us realize such gains with their tact will take much longer, and remember what that wise economist John Maynard Keynes once said, "in the long run, we're all dead."
5. Mo'a Money - if done wisely, with an eye toward ROI, IRR, ROR, etc, you will end up with a bigger pile of cash at the other end of your energy saving endeavors. And who doesn't want mo'a money? But hide it well, for goodness sakes, because Uncle Satan and the Governator are coming to town to get their grubby claws on your stake.

- Livin' carbon free is livin' free,
C. dog e. doG

P.S. Living in a state of taxation is hardly "remaining free". Then add to that burden all the rules, regulations, "policies", executive orders, etc. that many Republicrats support, (most of which violate the Constitution they so publicly and nominally cherish and swear to uphold), and a thinking person naturally concludes that we are not livin' la vida libre, nor do many/most(?) Republicans want such. Isn't the point, the essence of freedom living by "ones", doing by "ones", not being clubbed by others into subservience to form "majorities". No, no thank you Republicans, I will remain independent of you and your sibling Democrats, and try to eek out some bastard form of liberty without y'all, because if I wait for you, I'll need to master that cryovac thing before my corpse rots. And remember, it only takes you to change you; I don't need the majority of 300 million morons to tie my shoe, insulate my house, school my child, or bury my sorry ass face-up when I die.

Although I agree with many of your premises on freedom and liberty; unfortunately, today's Americans are not self reliant, self destined or as hearty as those in the past and what appear to be your makeup.

I liked your P.S. about doing by "ones" and living by "ones". Yes self determination and self reliance is the key but Americans have gotten lazy and dependent.

That has happened over time from FDR and his New Deal (the beginning of Socialism) to today and organizations like MoveOn.org and the hard Left. They want big government because they want control over all of us under the name of "fairness".

You see it written in Hillary's book "It takes a Village" to Al Gore and even Obama who stated this week that he was going to use the government to "bring the economic gap between people closer together".

Republicans are not 100% correct in their approach and they seldom go far enough to the Right. Democrats, however, are Hell bent on living what Hillary said: "some people are going to have to give some things up."

They have perpetuated class envy and jealousy and have created victims who feel entitled. Now I know some progressive will whine and cry and throw an hissy fit saying that those words are loaded and divisive but they are not. That is the truth......they pit one American against another for what????? POWER and CONTROL.....period.

I agree with your sentiment but today's Americans are not ready for complete self reliance and forging their own way. They have become weak.....lazy and feel entitled. I am not sure how to break that cycle.

You rightwing wackjobs are so deluded you can't see beyond the end of your noses. How sad. I pity you. Even your own people will tell you that the war in Iraq was about the OIL and it continues to be. Once the OIL Corporations have gained access to the oil fields, the war will end and our soldiers will be there on the permanent bases being built for "100 years" or longer, according to the MaCains/McSames. OPEN your eyes, Judy, and see the REAL world.

Throughout my life, the views I hold were mainstream; not viewed as necessarily "right wing"....I think Judy will agree.

I do not believe the war in Iraq was about oil as we have taken nothing in the way of oil from Iraq. But, in fact, the United Nations did violate their own policy with the "oil for food" fiasco. I hear no criticism of that boondoggle and oil was taken in lieu of sanctions imposed but a supposed peace seeking organization.

If you want to speak of conspiracy, let's look at the legislation last year that our Congress tried to pass deeding mineral rights of all of the ocean to the United Nations. Can you say.........One World Government?

We will not be in Iraq for 100 years, that is not what McCain said. As far as permanent bases, that would be nothing new...we have bases all over the world...always have.....always will.

The McSame thing is getting old.....Democrats stand on lofty principle but the use of such tactics reveal the MoveOn mentality and the hijacking of the party. Talk about "disenfranchisement", not only has your own party done that to Michigan and Florida but MoveOn and related groups have done it to mainstream Democrats.

Judy sees the REAL world I am sure but her reality is not the same as yours. I thought that Democrats and those on the Left championed "diversity of opinion"?

Mikey, Mikey, Mikey -

Other than your frenzied reactionary outbursts, can we expect anything better than this from you. I for one would be interested to hear a cogent response from a left-wing whack-job like yourself on how you intend to deal with the recent surge in energy prices, and what you think others should do.

- Sitting idly by my computer while vainly searching for knowledge,

C. dog e. doG

Right after we hear your plan, doggy.

Mikey -

You have read my ideas, and often. See above postings, and also see "Room For Intelligent Debate And Discussion" prior topic on this blog.

Why so afraid of joining the conversation in any substantive way, Mikey? I'm also still waiting to see your calculations on what parents can afford to school their own spawn. Are your "public" school teacher math skills a little rusty, or are you just unwilling to share the truth?

Remember, there's no shame in learning, even if you are/were a school teacher - it's still possible, I think. Most of my learning came after I left those hallowed halls of higher indoctrination steeped in liberal backwash, not that the other halls of milk-toast conservatism had much to offer either. Remember, it's the idea, not the label that deserves your attention. Make Socrates proud, and come out from the cave.

- Still pining for some common sense discussion with Mikey,

  C. dog e. doG

What has this to do with the price of gasoline and energy?

Mikey -

Are you just being your cute little coy self, or once again showing the gaping holes in your "public" school education. Any elementary school reading of my posts would glean self-actionable steps one could take to cut personal energy consumption in half. Given P*Q = TC, as Q decreases to 1/2Q, so does Total Cost. Therefore, with no general market reaction at all, what I propose reduces personal energy expenditure by one-half. Not bad, if I do say so myself.

Now, and this gets confusing for those unfamiliar with how supply and demand react elastically to the other via the mechanism of price, we introduce the inevitable "market" reaction to a 50% decrease in demand, if people are behaving rationally. Mikey, don't make the mistake of what would happen if such were to occur in "public" schools, as we all know the crazy answer there would be to increase price and add administrative staff. In the free world what happens is the producers, in this case those nasty oil men you so hate, would be forced to lower their price. But I'm not so naive to think oil will last forever. As we run out, price goes up, and people can take further actions to reduce their reliance on this formerly cheap energy source. Several replacement technologies already exist, and at the right price, they become economical, but not necessarily environmental. (Bill makes a good point about all those extra car batteries that will hit the waste stream, and CFL's have a nasty little secret: mercury.) So quit whining you can't drive across the country for $100 any more. That's life.

Now it's time to introduce another concept: "fungibility". As any one with a cursory understanding of energy knows, as goes one readily substitutable form of energy, so go the others. Even as we wait for the long transition to roll-over the American fleet, other actions consumers take to reduce their heating bills will show up at the gas pump, and that is how what I suggested "has to do with the price of gasoline and energy".

If you're still confused, perhaps you should visit Lebo's farm so he can spell it all out for you. Good luck! Now what's your energy plan and your schooling affordability calculations, again?

- Still waiting for Mikey to come to the Mtn,

C. dog e. doG

I find your attempt to be cute and clever a little too sophomoric to warrant anything more from me, Mr. Dog. Get a life.

Sophomoric? That's rich coming from a sophtmoronic guy who consistently hurls epithets at those who disagree with him: "You rightwing wackjobs are so deluded you can't see beyond the end of your noses," "MaCains/McSames. OPEN your eyes, Judy, and see the REAL world," "this is just more rightwing propaganda. So what if you travel, unless you can document what you say, your statements are meaningless," "greed outweighs responsibility among rightwingers. I've got mine...screw you is their agenda and motto," "This is typical rant of folks who think like you Bill," "it is your type that has THE narrow world view. Get real. What does neo-conservative mean....status quo. Live in the past, fear everything you don't understand!!," "That is why progressives must defeat the immorality of the neo-conservatives and right wing brainwashed fascists that support them," "I'll never see the world through your corrupt eyes," "I'm not sure why you have to bring up the Kennedy family. There are many more gangsters on your team, as we all know."

I'm sure there are many more where these came from (I culled these from just two blog topics), but I tired from documenting your inanity. Evidently, you're the only little boy trying to play in the big boys' sand box. The rest of us sluff off the occasional dig and get on with the import of the matter being discussed. But for Mikey, "you can dish it out, but you can't take it."

Mikey, your lack of response as to the substance of the issues and points raised by contributors speaks volumes regarding the vapidity of your thought process and/or the courage behind your convictions. I was hoping for so much more from you. Prove me wrong Mikey by showing your calculations of how much parents can afford to pay for schooling their spawn. Go out and buy a calculator, and get back to us when you figure out how to use it.

- Giving up on Scarecrow Mikey,

C. dog e. doG

P.S. If you know of a liberal who likes to discuss issues, provide cogent responses to challenges, and isn't afraid to do so, by all means, have him/her act as your proxy.