Thomas asks…
Do we also need to be wary of “Big Green” companies as well?
So far this election cycle, the alternative energy production and services industry has contributed nearly $800,000 to federal candidates, parties and committees, a figure much larger than the $220,000 it donated in the entire 2004 election cycle. It is on track to surpass the $957,000 collected by federal candidates, parties and committees from the industry in 2000, when alternative energy advocate Al Gore was running for president. Lobbying efforts by the industry peaked last year at $16 million. This number is likely to be surpassed, as the industry has already spent $11.3 million in the first half of this year.
http://www.fecwatch.org/news/2008/07/power-struggle-alternative-ene.html
And This From Nancy Pelosi’s website
The Democratic-led Congress is moving America in a New Direction for Energy Independence—working for consumers to lower gas prices, make America more secure, and launch a cleaner, smarter, more cost-effective energy future that creates hundreds of thousands of green jobs and reduces global warming.
http://speaker.gov/issues?id=0010
EDIT: Ghost – Things aren’t as black and white as you assume.
I did NOT say we shouldn’t look to alternatives.!
But since we will ALWAYS need oil for other uses, we need to get it from here.
Speculation does NOT affect the price nearly as much as the law of supply and demand.
Your Dems want to pass an “excessive” speculation act when they know it’s not the root cause.
THen…they will spend millions and have several subcommittees to determine what the definition of “excessive” is.
Totally unenforceable!
All the speculators have to do is carry their business overseas. Seems to be a theme with Democratic policies.
PS.
None of your calculations have any date or links to support them
The Expert answers:
Can you tell what is wrong with energy independence aside from the fact that there are people lobbying for it?
What is your solution, keep burning oil until we run out and our economy collapses because of it?
And if we want a short term solution, it would be to regulate the speculation on oil futures which is driving up the cost of oil past the issues of supply and demand.
If we get rid of all regulations on drilling, we might save 20 cents on gas per gallon 10 years down the line, so it is neither a short term or a long term solution to the problem, just a feel good measure to make it seem like congress is really doing something when it’s not.
Susan asks…
What are your thoughts on the energy saving light bulbs EU edict…….?
Today we are told on the news that we are all going to have to buy energy saving light bulbs, as dictated by the EU in Brussels.
OK, so they do save money by lasting longer, but the ones I have in my house are a lot less bright than the normal bulbs, also they take quite a while to actually come on.
Now my big gripe is, why is it that all of us in our homes be economising with electricity when shops have their spotlights on in their windows all night, advertising signs are on 24/7 and offices and government buildings are all lit up when no one’s working in them, shops have doors wide open in the winter letting all the heat out,and air con in summer with doors open.
Yes I understand that the fuels from Mother Earth will not last forever, and we have to do something about the situation of finding alternative methods of generating electricity in order that generations to come will be able to benefit.Shouldn’t people in position show the way by setting a good example to us all?
The Expert answers:
You will have to because they can make it a law which will force you to do whatever they think is good for you. The EU knows what is good for you better than you do. They are your nannies.
Since the bulbs are not as bright, you need more of them, which defeats the purpose. I use them only in multi-bulb fixtures or for lights that I want to leave on for a long time. Regular incandescent bulbs are best for reading. The energy efficient bulbs give off a high volume of low intensity light, regular bulbs give off a lower volume of higher intensity light.
Some lights have to be left on for safety and crime prevention, adverts get business. When ways are found to produce power that costs no more than present methods or is cheaper, then those ways will be used. Any attempts to legislate alternatives will likely result in more costly energy, which lowers the standard of living, causes unemployment and hurts people.
One way is to grow biofuels, using genetically engineered plants, but the nuts say no to genetic engineering. Tidal power is subject to storm damage and changes the environment. Wind power farms are ugly. Solar power arrays are ugly and change the environment. Hydroelectric dams change the environment. Fossil fuels damage the environment. Nuclear waste endangers the environment. The environmental nuts are opposed to all alternative power on a scale large enough to support our civilisation.
Their answer is to have fewer people, fewer things and for all to live in harmony with nature in a pastoral world. My answer is to continue to do what is needed, economise whereever feasible and keep trying to provide energy in better and cheaper ways so our civilization will continue to advance.
Donald asks…
Why is Sarah Palin skipping out on Alaska?
Just this past week, shortly after conducting a string of national TV interviews and skipping a state education conference, she was scolded by the Anchorage Daily News. “There are … low graduation rates, plummeting North Slope oil prices, proposals to build alternative energy projects, the gas pipeline,” the paper said in an editorial. “It’s time for the governor to refocus on Alaska’s needs.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081122/ap_en_ce/palin_s_popularity;_ylt=AhiWyjDVSm_mTcJt968u8i2s0NUE
The Expert answers:
Sure sounds like it doesn’t it. She’s riding on her celebrity bus and she needs to get off before it goes over the cliff.
Steven asks…
Is the Peak Oil question moot now?
“Over the past decade, a wave of drilling around the world has uncovered giant supplies of natural gas in shale rock. By some estimates, there’s 1,000 trillion cubic feet recoverable in North America alone—enough to supply the nation’s natural-gas needs for the next 45 years. Europe may have nearly 200 trillion cubic feet of its own.”
That sounds like good news. What about renewable energy? “Since there’s no longer an urgent need to make them (renewable energy) competitive immediately through subsidies, since we can use natural gas now, we can pour that money into R&D—so renewables will be ready to compete without lots of help when shale supplies run low, decades from now.”
That sounds like good news as well. We can stop subsidies for alternative energy and let R&D and the free market take over when they can make alternative energy affordable.
Does this now make the Peak Oil issue somewhat redundant?
http://naturalgasforeurope.com/how-shale-gas-is-going-to-rock-the-world.htm
The Expert answers:
Actually, in contrast to the “warmies” who post here on a regular basis(they are SO predictable), the discovery of large amounts of natural gas in the US is good news. So called “renewable energy sources” like wind and solar are not viable due to the high costs, and poor technology which makes them very inefficient. Nuclear energy is an excellent means of generating electricity, however the current administration would never allow a new nuke plant to be built in the US, and good old Harry S. Reed has made sure there is no waste repository in Nevada, although he recently lost a lot of influence in the state of Nevada, when he suggested that all the legal brothels should be closed…he said this in his address to the Nevada State Assembly, to an audience of state legislators, reporters, and concerned prostitutes who work in those targeted brothels…one of the more cynical, likely conservative reporters, stated that Reed was likely the highest paid whore in the room at the time…I am not sure I would agree totally, but he would certainly be near the top of the income curve for that profession.
Conversion of existing vehicles to CNG is both possible, and economically feasible, unlike what another answerer stated, and very likely to happen, and as CNG becomes available at the gas stations, we will see larger numbers of those vehicles on the road. Most of the large truck manufacturers already make comparable CNG engines so the cost of freight by truck would be relatively easy to convert, as the vast majority of the over the road trucks are replaced on a 5 year schedule, and the costs of a CNG engine are comparable to the diesels, and the mileage is comparable, but the operating costs are significantly reduced, so that could happen fairly quickly as the CNG became readily available at truck stops.
Overall, it definitely changes the basis for discussion regarding peak oil.
Richard asks…
Who still believes in Global warming?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/environment-minister-sammy-wilson-i-still-think-manmade-climate-change-is-a-con-14123972.html
i agree with everything he said of course im not against alternative energy but for a combination of the two, Global warming its a hoax
millions of scientists have proven global warming where is your source
?
The Expert answers:
I don’t and never did. The hottest year on record is 1934, the third hottest year on record is 1921, if people look at history they will see that what is happening now is normal. Some of the global warming supporters have tried to convince people that the hottest years on record have occurred in this past decade but that is false.
Artgurl, no, you’re wrong: Funny you threw 2007 in there, the rest of the libs proclaim that 1998 is the hottest year on record, make up your minds.
Http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/15/science/sci-temp15
If NASA says it is the hottest year on record I am going to believe them, not some liberal blogger. There are 200K more links just like that from reputable sources stating that 1934 was and is the hottest year on record.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers