Whinergate

Whinergate

Submitted by Simon on Sun, 05/04/2008 - 8:16pm

"Barack Obama is struggling to contain his anger and frustration over the constant barrage of questions about his character and judgment, his wife has revealed." Further confirmation that Obambi has changed from the candidate of "hope" to the candidate of "hope you don't ask me too many questions." One immediately thinks of a line in the Maureen Dowd column we noted here:

“Why” he pleaded, sounding a bit, dare we say, bitter, “can’t I just eat my waffle?” ¶ His subtext was obvious: Why can’t I just be president? Why do I have to keep eating these gooey waffles and answering these gotcha questions and debating this gonzo woman?

I guess the meme's good for more than a day or two, Ann!

The article also contains this anecdote: "James Pickens is typical of those who have been inspired by the black senator from Illinois. A reformed crack cocaine dealer, he is now peddling Obama T-shirts." Wonderful choice of words - he's gone from selling crack to "peddling" Obama shirts. Come to think of it - isn't Pickens just selling the same drug in a different delivery mechanism? According to Wikipedia, the proximate effects of cocaine are "hyperactivity, restlessness, increased blood pressure, increased heart rate and euphoria. The euphoria is sometimes followed by feelings of discomfort and depression and a craving to experience the drug again." Sounds like the arc of the Obama campaign to me!

Post facto:
Michelle (5/24/08)

Simon's blog

Add new comment

1217 reads

2008 Election

Anger and control

Submitted by Larry Sheldon (not verified) on Sun, 05/04/2008 - 9:01pm.

Lemme see if I've got it right.

This is important.

McCain is the one with the out-of-control temper.

Obama and Clinton are ALWAYS cool as cucumbers when the situation gets tense.

Right?

any thoughts

Submitted by bucyrus on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 6:39am.

Simon, any thoughts on the candidates' positions on a summerlong gas tax holiday? The whining elitist Obama says its a gimmick. McCain and Clinton think its a swell idea. I'm hoping John and Hillary announce their plans to make up the revenue shortfall soon. I'm sure they will. Surely these two far more mature and experienced candidates wouldn't just pander...

__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

Actually, from what I've

Submitted by Simon on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 7:19am.

Actually, from what I've read so far, I'm with Obama on this one - although that's a soft conclusion. My mind could be changed.

Gas tax and Ann Dunham

Submitted by Maxtrue on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 7:35am.

Well, Obama calls it a gimick even though he voted three times in Illinois for the same gas holiday. It IS a short term fix without being attached to windfall tax, but to hear Pelosi argue about her energy plans and the rumors flying about a BIG gas tax Democrats are planning increase support for McCain. Democrats can't decide whether added taxes would pay for infrastructure, alternative energy or social programs...LOL.

Anyone notice the problems with ethanol? I predicted more than a year ago that ethanol is not the solution, yet Obama when asked by Russert about it stuttered for several moments, didn't answer the question and said when he became President he would review the policies because FEEDING THE WORLD WAS HIS HIGHEST PRIORITY.

Yep, what ever will get him elected is exactly what he will say as he called Hillary pandering on the gas holiday issue.h
I wrote about this extensively elsewhere over the weekend: Obama's mother was hardly conservative. We all know Obama spun his mother as conservative to appeal to the bitter class. She spent little time in Kanasas, went to Mercer High School and excelled in that school's "anarchy ally" enjoying communist studies (later studied Russian) and joined the Unitarian Church (another Obama mispeak). She didn't date in high school, but as the NYT mentioned, she didn't like white boys with short hair. She wanted to go to the University of Chicago, but in Hawaii she dated the first black student at the University of Hawaii and had Barak Obama Jr. She never did date white men and spent her life outside of the US (didn't like an Eiseinhower/conservative America). Obama first influences then were a communist mom, communist dad and a communist mentor introduced to Barak by his soon to be leaving him father -Frank Davis. This is the Marxist-loving guy who wrote a poem called "Jesus was a N-word". Google him yourselves. He apparently pointed Barak in the direct of CHicago.

For Obama to say that his mother was a simple white woman from Kanasas is a distorted stretch. To call her conservative is a lie. And it is a lie with far deeper problems that Hillary's Bosnia sniperfire. For those who think her teachers at Mercer High School weren't radical, one of her teachers said upon hearing Ann Dunham had settled down (no marraige document produced) and had Barak, "I was surprised she had decided to do such a radical thing", gives you an idea about what her high school teacher thought was conservative. (Please note the radical line comes right after the observation about marrying and having a baby, NOT about Black and White). The irony is the use of Newspeak by Mercer during the fifties and by Barak today.

Conservative? Oh, she was just "uncommon". I get it The fact that media refuses to vet the life and times of both Obama's mother and father and relies mostly on Obama accounts is both bad journalism and partisan filtering. Had Hillary such a mom, the Press would be calling her a radical.

It IS a short term fix

Submitted by Simon on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 7:52am.

It IS a short term fix without being attached to windfall tax, but to hear Pelosi argue about her energy plans and the rumors flying about a BIG gas tax Democrats are planning increase support for McCain. Democrats can't decide whether added taxes would pay for infrastructure, alternative energy or social programs...LOL.

Hillary's calling for such a windfall tax too, though, right?

As to overall gas taxes, it's not an original observation (but it is a true one) to note that the Democrats aren't upset at the price of gas, they're upset about whose pockets the excess is going into. This is the same part who wanted (may even want) to raise gas taxes to discourage people from driving - funny how they're now falling over themselves to be prolier than thou about the cost of driving!

"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."

Yes, Hillary is

Submitted by Maxtrue on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 8:12am.

The problem here as I see it is that Hillary would like to see windfall go towards alternative energy particularly clean coal, wind and solar. She is likely to consider nuclear as long as new designs are terror-proof and meltdown-proof along with a coherent storage plan. On this issue, she is way in front of Obama. On the other hand, she does see the need to keep prices down for the people who really need to drive daily. She would prefer, I suppose to issue gas rebates and go after the companies directly, rather than the user end idea. Perhaps we are getting to a point where the government will issue a gas tax exemption card for qualified motorists, but certainly Detroit has to start thinking about fuel mileage.

Pelosi and others are on another planet. They DO want to limit driving with little concern about how many people MUST drive. And we all can be worried about where the new $1 tax will go. I trust Pelosi far less than Hillary. And Obama? He's pretending that his election will mean a 30% drop n car fuel use by the end of THIS DECADE (see Russert interview from yesterday). He is drinking far too much of his own kool aid.

And Simon, if you want a good laugh, read Michelle's thesis. Am I wrong in saying she claims that Black separatists care more about the Black community because intergrationsits have to divide their attention between the white community and the black one? And that intergrationists don't know about the poor black communities because of this division of attention? Perhaps, I misunderstand, but my College would not have given me a rather high grade on such conclusions, or have questioned my data.

check here for part 1,2,3,4

Snicker. "prolier than

Submitted by Tully on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 8:17am.

Snicker. "prolier than thou"

This is also the same party that has assiduously blocked the development of new oil fields and energy sources in the US, even though we have untapped estimated oil reserves equal to our proven ones, and a couple o' centuries worth of coal and oil shale that said party has managed to place off limits. And let's not forget nuclear power...whenever a Democrat blames anyone else for high energy prices, I want to slap them--with a pipe wrench.

A gas tax holiday won't do much good. 18 cents a gallon? I get a dime a gallon off my gas right now just using the right card to buy it with. In the meantime, prices have done to fuel consumption exactly what the Dems have long claimed they wanted to do with a gas tax--fuel consumption is DOWN for the first time in decades, and people are buying more fuel-efficient cars. Wow, markets work. Who woulda thunk it?

Ethanol isn't bad in and of itself. It's subsidizing and mandating its usage that's stupid. Drop the ethanol subsidies and the refinery mandates, and the market will sort itself out. Cellulosic ethanol is already in heavy development, and that won't boost food prices. Develop a good small-scale method of cellulosic production and people will be able to make their own cheaply.

Joined a Unitarian chuch?

Submitted by Tully on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 7:54am.

Joined a Unitarian chuch? HORRORS! Knew a black radical poet who recounted the days of Jim Crow to him? OMG--STOP THE PRESSES! (And, BTW, Frank Marshall Davis was introduced to Obama by his white grandfather the furniture-store manager, not by his Kenyan socialist economist father, who decamped when Obama was still in diapers.)

Who ever said Obama's mother was conservative, and why should it matter? It doesn't matter what his parents were, it matters what HE is.

Obama did

Submitted by Maxtrue on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 8:26am.

Tully, it was Obama who touted his mother as a conservative from Kanasa. Seems like a bigger spin than Bosnian sniper fire and has everything to do with how Obama is trying/tried to fictionalize his story for political reasons. Is that really close to reality? And Obama gives little autobiographical note to his mother's history, his father's views or Frank Davis who was more than just a radical poet. Are you suggesting that Obama didn't make serious filtering here in his book that was to serve as the foundation for his election bid? Obama mentioned another Church his mother belonged to and hardly talked about Unitarian or atheist inclinations. I never said such association was criminal, but rather Obama is a liar. He lied to spin the story in a direction that would support his campaign claims.

I sure hope Obama wasn't in diapers at five. Again, who ever said Obama's mother was conservative? Obama. And I think you are missing the point. Father, Mother, first mentor and his last spiritual guide who Obama dedicated his book to. And now Obama says Moss is a great preacher (Moss defends Wright). None of this matters? Given the huge role Obama has said these people shaped his life and his values, it counts to a significant degree in who OBAMA is. Obama says this "himselves".

To drive my point home with

Submitted by Tully on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 9:53am.

To drive my point home with a sledge, Max, you waste time demonizing Obama by demonizing his mother and an acquaintance, and you do so with shaky info, framed to demonize.

His mother's history isn't all that relevant after he went to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Frank Davis' history of CPUSA and labor activism even less so--he was pushing 70 when Obama met him. And BTW, once again, Obama's Kenyan father left when Obama was under two years old, and saw him only one more time in his life, when Jr. was 10. (Since I can do math in my head, it's also obvious that it was either a "shotgun wedding" or Jr. was a couple-three months premature...but so what?)

Showing Obama is a liar is no great feat--he's a pol, and his lip are moving. What, a politician wrote a self-serving bio? Say it ain't so! I don't give a bleep what Obama's mommy did before he was born. Even if his claims about her don't match what an outside investigator would find, that doesn't even mean he's lying--his view is not that of an historical investigatory detective, parents (and custodial grandparents) lie to the kids all the time, and kids see their parents differently than the world does.

What Obama has done himself since he became an adult is of FAR more relevance than absolutely anything else, and is the only way to speak to his character and thoughts and actions. That his mama was a bit odd means little to nothing. You don't get to pick your ancestors, or your grandparent's friends.

Sledge hammer?

Submitted by Maxtrue on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 10:26am.

Obama has said more than once in a disengenuous bid to appeal to the "bitter" folks that his mother was a white conservative from Kansas. My "investigation" was meant to highlight the obvious fact Obama's mother was not conservative and she was quite pleased to get the hell out of Kansas. It is Obama who says his mothers values etc. represent the greatest influence on his life, not me. Again, his mother's political and cultural take, his father's and his "mentor" Davis are filtered for public consumption. Certainly, by the time Obama was writing his history he must have been quite ware of the nature of all of their inclinations and presented his consciously sanitized version of events and views.

Since my comment started with the one first mentioned, I will leave it as that. If I happen to find an adult pattern that is a bit consistent with his younger pattern, then I will continue to find the threads consistent. And it is funny that even Obama might agree. He did not mention Frank's last name in his autobiography. He hardly mentioned the history of his mother. I suppose this selectivity had nothing to do with his fiction being a platform for his campaign and my claim of disengenuity.

As far as demonizing, my comments above center about Obama's selective and contrary take on his own autobiography and not that any of the players including Wright did something criminal, except perhaps Ayers and Rezko. And you certainly do get to pick your friends. As far as mothers and fathers, I can understand filtering the questionable facts for a campaign run, but then touting his mom as a conservative is utter BS. He crossed the line, not me.

Hello there.....

Submitted by Maxtrue on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 8:39am.

Presently, doesn't turning corn into fuel cost more energy than it makes? And the oil in Anbar would provide what amount in reserves? I believe Solar, Wind, conservation and better fuel mileage have be advocated by DEMOCRATS, so I do not find your characterization balanced. Gee those Democrats are such foolish people. And look at the cost to build nuclear plants. And the waste storage? And terror-proof designs? Sure they play a role if handled properly, but they are not THE answer. What campaign are you working for, Republican?

I suspect that with Republicans ruling for decades, cars would be getting 10 miles per gallon running on fuel with lead. Hell, we would be burning coal and moths would be adapting again by turning black.

Wrong standard

Submitted by Tully on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 10:29am.

Presently, doesn't turning corn into fuel cost more energy than it makes?

No, and in any case, wrong assessment standard. The object of fuel production is to produce portable energy. Ethanol being so easy to make, one can use sporadic and stationary and even FREE energy sources to produce ethanol. Solar stills are a case in point--the energy input costs nothing and can't be directly used for portable fuel, so it doesn't matter how much of that energy you use to produce portable fuel. I could make several gallons a week of 180-proof fuel ethanol in my backyard for a small investment in equipment and time and under $1/gallon in production materials--if moonshinin' weren't illegal. The original autos were designed to run on ethanol simply because farmers could make their own, but petroleum got so cheap designs changed.

For three decades Democrats have shut down the exploration and development of existing energy resources in this country--the CHINESE are currently developing new oil production closer to our shores than we are! All the things associated with same can be handled, and handling improves with experience, but we've not been allowed to get the experience.

Storing nuclear waste is simply not the big deal it's made out to be. Encase in steel and concrete, stack in desert, place warning signs. Our g'g'g'g'children will remine it for new uses. "Better fuel mileage?" The thousands dead from the downsizing of cars to CAFE standards might have a different view of how well that worked--but it also led to better safety technology, so it might be a wash, just not to the dead. Terror-proof nuclear designs? Um, you do know there over a hundred operating nuke plants in the US now, have been for decades, without a single actual terrorist incident? That designs have improved radically since then, so that new plants would be at least an order of magnitude safer than existing ones?

Everyone touts electric cars as an "environmentally friendly" solution. Heh. Ever checked out the pollution wastes associated with heavy battery production? Or factored in the generation waste from power plants? TANSTAAFL. Wind? Useful but variable-output. Solar? Getting better, but not there yet for scale production. We could even harness tidal power--but some enviro-Dem would pop up to complain we were bruising zebra mussels. Hydro? Try building a new dam today. Just try.

Yes, I blame the Democrats for our energy problems. ALL fuel/energy alternatives can be useful and usable--as they become economically and technologically viable. What the Dems have done is to try to make their preferred dream solutions more economically viable by governmental dictate, an approach that has a long history of poor results. Our addiction to oil has been based on it being cheap. As it becomes uncheap, plenty of alternatives come into play. But much of the large-scale infrastructure required to utilize such alternatives (such as more nuclear energy) has also been continually stymied by the Dems.

Just some responsive thoughts....

Submitted by Maxtrue on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 1:52pm.

1. One has to work out scale designs for the terror-proof and meltdown proof models. We live in a brave new world. It is not conflation to say that without such tested new designs we send quite a dangerous signal amplification of present global dangers/trends. This development and building cost issue figures into how such nuclear policy would be cheaper than other alternatives with the same investment over time.

2. I am not so sure the complete process of corn to fuel burning is without pollution. I haven't seen large scale solar creating ethanol. Even the ground experiances degradation with our present single crop use. This is probably conflation but one can reasonabley argue we must turn our farming towards other more soil-sustaining crops and strategy. No one is suggesting people start growning corn in their back yard even if they could. Fuel cells charged through clean coal technology would have less imprint on the ecology if we would jump the design-to-building hurdle.

3. If nuclear storage was so simple to solve, then why is it a global problem given the nuclear usage today? Democrats?

4. I don't think there is a direct proportional relationship between cafe standards and fatalities. Many factors go into making a car safer such as steering, balloons, better brakes design to lower momentum/weight. I watch NASCAR crashes at hundreds of miles an hour with few deaths. Not all solutions would require weight added nor is further reductions in gas inefficencies based on further reductions in weight or safety.

5. Fuel cells are not the same as heavy batteries and nuclear power plants increase water temperature (impact on estuaries) unless you are suggesting untested non-water cooled plants that are also much more expensive to test and build.

6. Certainly, Democrats have pushed solar and conservation, whereas it seems Republicans even first rejected taking lead out of gasoline. How many die from pollution? I believe Democrats have backed clean-coal technology and carbon sequestration. Anbar would get us very far, so how worth it is it? Given the abundance of coal and tar oil, these are perhaps the best available fuels. I didn't know our coasts and farm land are full of untapped reserves. Is it sensible to simply let corporate profits dictate when we advance these new technologies with government pushing? Seems like until the bottom drops out and they have nothing to sell, we'll be paying more and more. We raced towards the bomb with more vigor even after we knew no one else was close to having one.

I do not profess to have your expert knowledge of these subjects, so don't take my remarks as some head-on challenge to your reply. Perhaps, there are some points I made that are valid. Am I wrong in suggesting Democrats have advocated that the military develope synthetic fuel for aircraft and fuel cells? I think the owner of Virgin Airways is a pretty Liberal fellow. I believe Democrats have pushed replacing our bulbs with better ones and better energy efficient building design. I don't see quite the disporportional blame you cast on the Democrats, though I do recognize they have taken numerous questionable positions.

I have supported a limited advance on new better-designed nuke plants as well as a push for clean coal, carbon-sequestration and fuel cell technology. It should be pushed FASTER. I do not see where Democrats are so opposed to theses things. If dealing with energy now beyond the market mentality isn't a critical national security issue as McCain says it is, what is? I hear both Hillary and Obama saying that. Even McCain chimes in.

In order:1) It's always a

Submitted by Tully on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 2:34pm.

In order:

1) It's always a brave new world. ALL avenues have plusses and minuses. The nature of fearmongers and chicken littles is to exaggerate one while ignoring the other, and vice versa for their preferred avenues.

2) Um, you don't need corn to make ethanol. Really! That's just what you get paid those big government crop and ethanol subsidies to do, under those government mandates that so effectively lower the efficiency and production volume of refineries while driving up food and liquor and gas prices. Thank Archer Daniels Midland, which for a half-century has kept Congress convinced that subsidizing corn was Really Good Politics (especially in farm country) and that alt-fuel research was a dandy excuse. Fortunately, some folks ignored corn lobbying and went right for lignocellulose research. We throw away enough "waste plant material" in America every year to replace a full 25% of our current gasoline consumption through lignocellulosic ethanol from our discards. Current production cost of same is about $2-2.25 a gallon, including sunk capital cost, and technology is driving it lower. That's getting right down there with corn ethanol. Any old cellulose will do. Grass clippings are fine. Leaves. Sawdust.

3) It's not, despite the hysterical gibberish of anti-nukers. Yes, in Congress the Dems lead that brigade. But the proper disposal and storage of nuclear waste is fairly simple and safe, if expensive. (Just don't do it like the Russians did, dropping it in lakes and praying they wouldn't overflow or dry up and blow away.)

4) There is indeed a direct relationship, and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration can tell you all about it. By best estimates, the introduction of CAFE standards has resulted in roughly two thousand extra traffic fatalities per year, despite advances in safety technology.

5) So what? Build lake. Build plant. Cool plant with lake. Produces some of the biggest fish you ever saw, due to the lack of winter kill from warm water. Fuel cells? Let me know when you have non-polluting manufacture and disposal of fuel cells suitable for passenger vehicles, priced low enough to be useful. Hydrogen fuel cells are getting there, but production is by NO means non-polluting and they're still too expensive. And as always the base source of energy production to make the hydrogen or the electricity still produces pollution and requires fuel itself.

6) Certainly, Democrats have pushed solar and conservation... It's not what they've pushed I fault them for, IT'S WHAT THEY'VE CONTINUALLY BLOCKED. EX: For the last thirty years the Dems have blocked ANWR (not Anbar) exploration for rather specious reasons, growing more specious by the year as clean-drilling technology continually improves, always saying that it wouldn't really help us out for a decade anyway. Um, Decade One was up twenty years ago...it could have been helping us just fine for quite a while now, reducing our dependence on questionable foreigners. But no...Conservative estimates of ANWR reserves are about 25% of the combined rest of current US reserves in production. That's a lotta oil. Then there's the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, which has been designated for oil production for over 80 years and has yet to be drilled, also because of Dem obstructionism. (I could go on and on--we could double our proven reserves in short order if Congress allowed, without any significant environmental damage.)

Lastly, carbon sequestration has nothing to do with primary energy production. It's a side issue.

Thanks for the answers. I

Submitted by Maxtrue on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 5:25pm.

Thanks for the answers. I don't want to start playing tennis but allow me a few responses.

1. I think that with a. increasing numbers of planned nuclear plants and the NEW reality of global terrorism, it is more than prudent to field the reactors that are both terror-proof and realtively meltdown-proof. b. The designs are there, but they must be fielded in scaled tests and shown to be cheap enough rather than advancing other alternatives to fruition. I'll get to that below. It isn't chicken little to expect relatively easy airborne terror approaches to nuke sites and their stored waste given our great state of national security. I accept that this is a hurdle that can be over-come, but at an undetermined cost.

2. Yes, you addressed the larger issue of NOT-Corn and you are right. I was refering to the Corn Myth. I think I mentioned that on another thread. Great idea and one that can proceed at various smaller levels.

3. Nuclear also creates the global transport of waste. Until workable models properly enforced appear, fuel, waste and waste-in-transport are targets. If all the plants proposed are built, the world will be laced with hourly nuclear material transport. I guess that doesn't make you uncomfortable. I suspect the safe transport of all this stuff including insurance coverage has to weigh against the costs of fielding the alternatives.

4. It takes less brake power to stop a lighter car. Cars can be designed with cages, composite material, air bags and crash avoidance systems that could mitigate the light weight. Take two cars of equal weight and one has a far better fuel mixing system as well as air dynamic. I doubt the increased mileage will result in the car gaining weight. I think you get the point despite the general truth of what you say. Two cars, same weight, one with air bags another not. One with a better located fuel tank, one with not. At a certain point technology can create gains in mileage without serious weight reductions. That was my point, not that a cadillac of 1970 can't take a head on better than a Saturn. The general curve you referenced is correct.

5. Nuclear gives off heat. If global warming is a concern, heat is. Some designs reduce the need for water cooling heat. Still, create a lake, create the plant, transport the waste -all energy costs and money costs. I was suggesting alternative sources and their development might be a better investment.

6. Yes, I've been using Al Akbar for so long I forgot. My bad. Anwar would power our cars for how long? Isn't the real large fossil source (and the cheaper one) coal and tar oil? Using them depends on our ability to sequester carbon. Clean coal would not only be a boon to America, but we can export technology to other giants who have plenty of coal. Coal liquification and a steady stream of gas. I mean, why not break the technology barrier and advance clean coal and tar oil? Canada has the largest reserves of tar crude in the world. That should hold us over. Nukes could be used to create hydrogen and limited electrical and spur hygrogen fuel cells. I have seen clean coal designs with carbon sequestering that can can also create hydrogen.

The cellulosic approach you talked about could be a powerful suppliment as solar comes to maturity. I just don't see the need to divert lots of cash into present generation nuclear plants and encourage a global move towards an extremely hazardous technology. Carbon sequestering can also get more out of existing fields.

Personally, I think Anwar should be our strategic reserves in case of global conflict. How much available oil do we have here in the States and with present environmental record, what are the dangers to wild life and ecology? Salmon is already under attack by foreign weeds. Marine life is already under attack by over fishing and pollution. I think most Americans would find new off-shore drilling a bit unsettling and prefer advancing clean-coal, some limited new generation terror-proof nuclear plants, more push on wind solar and wave. Of course, cellulosic could provide a local revolution in power if States had the brains to coordinate the various sources with a series of regional facilities. As I said, national security should be incentive to break the alternative energy barrier. We went to the moon for little profit. One could even wonder a what if....with the money lost through years of mangeled Iraqi policy. I am sure 200 billion might have encouraged an energy rush.....

On the other hand, a Democratic drive to limit driving places us at increasing competitive risk. I never said I agree with Pelosi's view.

1a) nothing is ever totally

Submitted by Tully on Mon, 05/05/2008 - 9:36pm.

1a) nothing is ever totally "proof" against anything. Modern design has already addressed most of what you reference, and the more recent US plants are already so covered. It's not an undetermined cost. I will not be more specific other than to note that any energy plant can be damaged, but in current operating designs major contaminant release is unlikely, and would be highly localized. (Unlike in a certain Soviet design that no one sane will ever use, and that was stupid and dangerous even when it was first built.) The major danger from a plant strike is not release, it's the loss of power and resultant damages from that.

2) Yeah, I hate the "corn myth." Corn farmers love it. Fortunately the technology is catching up to it. Switchgrass, anyone? Kudzu?

3) We have that now. The real problem there is hysterical NIMBY. Without that the problem is greatly reduced.

4) It's just the facts, and it applies consistently both among and across the weight ranges and classes. Quite a bit of study has gone into it. It's not just bigger cars hitting little ones, it's the sheer physics of little cars hitting anything, including each other. Not to mention COST--though pricing people out of their vehicles is also an overt green goal. And in any case, you can't eliminate larger vehicles without getting uncomfortably close to unfree America.

5) Matter of scale--it's not even remotely a problem compared to the energy generation it replaces. You can forget the heat angle. Yep, everything costs. Including solar, etc. That's why you do cost/benefit analysis. Once again, sequestration is a side issue. Side issues can of course be included in cost/benefit analysis, but that's a different argument.

6) a 25% increase (ANWR) in producing reserves is still more oil. How long will a zero percent increase in reserves power our cars? And we're dependent on oil for a lot more than vehicle fuel. We need the oil and the arguments against drilling the ANWR swamp are flimsy at best. (Repeat point on carbon sequestration.) Clean coal? Hmm, that reminds me of something...what party was that guy in again? Off-shore drilling: what was the net spillage from Katrina washing over hundreds of modern rigs? Oh yeah, just about zero--the technology has gotten that good, that most of the fears that caused off-shore rigs to be near-banned are now groundless. Average natural petroleum seepage in the Gulf is well over 100,000 barrels a year. In fact, roughly half of ALL oil that enters the marine environment worldwide NOW is the result of completely natural seepage, and that rate would be even higher if we weren't reducing pressure in some of those oil fields by sucking oil out of them.

It isn't what we don't know that hurts us. It's what we know that isn't true.

Good answers Tully

Submitted by Maxtrue on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 10:12am.

I think however, avoiding car accidents plays a role in fatalites and such prevention safety can be addressed without adding much weight, but I see your point. Certainly there is a direct relation between weight and death. And of course, such added technology does increase the price which is something you mentioned.

I spoke to a friend who said much of the oil washing up on Florida shores come from ships. If the Democrats were so cencerned about this oil pollution, they would crack down on fuel leaks. Try going to a Florida beach and avoid getting an oil ball on your swim suit. I rememeber a clip of Ted's boat on the Cape dumping fuel in the harbor.

I did read that many nuclear plant contaiment domes on present reactors where not aircraft proof as touted. I assume you mean current plants built to legal standards are relatively safe.

One thing I am still not certain about, though I know you don't like doing other people's homework, is how much native oil in reserve does America have? My point about carbon sequestration was whether investment now in clean-coal and sequestration would be the best investment v nuclear. Sequestration has been shown to push more oil out of old wells. Wouldn't new clean-coal plants that can trap carbon emissions be the best short term solution?

One last point. Are you comfortable with the global traffic of fuel, waste and waste storage of nuclear material given the talk about the number of new plants world wide? There are always risks, but given the degree that global terror has increased, wouldn't such enormous transport be rather dangerous? I mean, how safe would nuclear storage and plants be in Yemen, Algeria and Tunisia when other targets are constantly hit?

And much of it doesn't...

Submitted by Tully on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 12:09pm.

I spoke to a friend who said much of the oil washing up on Florida shores come from ships.

Sure. And much of it doesn't. Then there's places in California where tar balls from natural seepage wash up all the time. The seepage in the Gulf of Mexico, BTW, is heavy enough to be visible from space.

how much native oil in reserve does America have?

Depends on who's counting, and how. We have developed (producing, proven) reserves of about 30 billion barrels, and that's the figure usually cited...BUT...ANWR would add an estimated 7-8 billion to that. The Bakken formation estimates tack on another 4B on the conservative side. The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) west of the North Slope area is estimated at 10 billion plus and 60 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and has been leasing out over the last decade and is just beginning to produce. There's an estimated 60 billion recoverable barrels in the Gulf of Mexico--much of which Congress won't let us access, even though it's farther offshore than places the Chinese are drilling in the Gulf NOW. There are smaller offshore fields on both coasts. That's not counting any offshore fields north of Alaska.

Oil shale? We have an estimated 1.25 trillion barrels worth of recoverable oil shale in America--70% or more of it on federal lands out west. That oil shale starts becoming economically viable to produce oil from at about half of the current world oil price. That's all before we get to coal.

We got one heckuva lot of coal, but Clinton locked up the bulk of our cleanest and best, for which I'm sure Mr. Riady thanks him. Utah sure doesn't. We're NOT running out of usable hydrocarbon fuels--oil and oil equivalents. Not anytime soon. Not even remotely. It just gets more expensive to produce as the low-lying fruit gets picked off.

Nuclear waste storage is not rocket science, just somewhat expensive. Deep disposal in geologically stable landforms is good. Doing same in subduction zones, even better. The ultimate recycling, that.

Agreed...

Submitted by Maxtrue on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 1:04pm.

Well based on the figure you site it seems the best solution would be to start opening up some Gulf areas to drilling. I have heard of technology that could keep lines closed in case of bad weather and certainly new sites will help Southern reconstruction before China comes knocking. I still favor very controlled tapping of Anwar as a strategic reserve -sorry.

Then to the heart of the matter -shale oil, tar oil is abundant in North America. We should immediately push extraction technology as well as coal liquification. I mentioned sequestering because this would need to be done to keep pollution and CO2 down as well providing resource to make the most of old wells. As you said, there is more than enough fossil fuel to bridge the gap until solar and hydrogen fuel becomes economic reality. Amazing the Press doesn't make this clear, but Climate Fears and uncertainity about capping the CO2 makes them think all fossil fuels mean our extinction.

In the meantime, a few more nuclear sites could open as we push the world to produce only the best plants and agree to extensive C and C of fuel and waste transport. The WORLD must spend the money to make transport idiot and terror-proof within reasonable rules and enforcement.

The future path seems clear and I can't understand the fuss. Cellulsic material is also abundant and ready now to curb auto fuel problems. I do think the areas above need some Federal push, but much of that could come in tax incentives. To allow Anwar to mask the divergent thinking is BS. Anwar is a small slice of the necessary pie.

With oil prices rising, the time has come for the expensive investments and using the low-lying fruit.

Open up select sites and create a policy that favors shale oil and tar oil extraction. Promote carbon sequestration and clean-coal technology. Advance regional networks for cellulsic energy production. Have Anwar as a strategic reserve when the Gulf explodes. Provide incentives for conservation, solar, wind, wave and basic research including fuel cell technology and even burning seawater...LOL

Now there is a policy I could support. It will bridge the gap to the future. How fast we do this will determine how long others hold our economy hostage. Meanwhile China has become the number one producer of CO2 and as you say, knocking at our Southern door.

And if we just wait long

Submitted by Tully on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 2:37pm.

And if we just wait long enough, solar is MAYBE starting to reach reasonable...of course, they make big claims but aren't in commercial production yet.

What keeps a lot of that fruit from being grabbed and full-scaled is that if demand comes off of oil, oil prices will plummet, people will once again use more of it, and the alt-energy sources go back to being a more-expensive alternative. Until the next political crisis involving OPEC regions, that is.

What's important to remember is that the cheapest available sources are always the first used.

Yep....

Submitted by Maxtrue on Tue, 05/06/2008 - 3:42pm.

Just look at the Mars rovers, but their solar arrays aren't in cheaper commercial production. Solar paint is still a bit away.

In the sense you're talking about I think we should keep the price of oil high (tax) but perhaps issue tax exemptions to those most in need. The revenue has got to go towards the energy barrier. Local goverments should already be organizing cellulosic sources. I would like to see a more coherent and funded push towards the technologies discussed. The Pelosi idea of simply having us stop driving is bone-headed and typical. As you said, lower demand will lower prices and take away the incentive for alternatives. If we could just pass the technological barrier discussed, perhaps with the tax and other incentives, the new sources highlighted WILL be cheaper in a decade. Yet Obama says he will reduce our oil consumptiom by 30% in less than three years.

In the meantime, the fossil fuel sources and some nuclear seem the way to go with a push to make them safe and clean. The thread started with Corn and that shows just how crazy policy has been. NY has plenty of garbage, paper pulp, grass etc. It also has plans for clean coal. The time is now to push what is ready into the market.

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Search