Gasoline - Stray thoughts

[Andy]

Re: continued

Uh, because we don't have enough?

We have plenty. We just are not getting it. See my post above about the current estimates on US untapped oil.

Let me count the ways:

- they've looted countless billions of dollars from us
- they distort our foreign policy
- they make us dependent on their whim
- they can trigger disaster in the US by cutting us off

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree here. They can't cut us off. It's a free market. They can't MAKE us dependent. We choose to be dependent by not getting our own oil. I'm not sure how they distort our foreign policy... They have looted far less than I wager you know. Most of our imported oil is from the local region, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and so on. Saudis account for only a small fraction of our imports, a very small fraction.

We can make that up by all the OTHER things that have wrecked our competitiveness - irrational immigration policy, failed government schools, "affirmative action", burdensome corporate taxation, etc.

Right. Do you think government is going to undo all those things, when they ruin our economy with an artificial oil shortage? No, I wager not. So it will still put us at a huge disadvantage.

Do you ever get the feeling nobody is listening to you? I've said this about five times this thread:
The oil prices are set by OPEC at just the right level to plunder us, but not so high as to trigger a REAL determined alternate energy search.

I've read this yes. I just don't see it though.

See, I see billions spent on alternative energy sources. Bio-diesel, Ethanol, Wind mills, Hydro power, LPG, Hydrogen, electric cars, Solar panels. And the list of companies investing in alternative fuels is huge!

Chevron $300 Million a year!
BP $8 Billion over the next 10 years!
Royal Dutch Shell $1.3 Billion invested (I couldn't find a good link)
Conoco Phillips $150 Million a year!

None of which includes federal tax payer confiscated, dished out money, for research grants.

World wide $71 billion of new investments were put into renewable energy projects in 2006 alone. Now some may point out that that's not so much compared to oil profits... but then, that's because as I've said many times now, alternative fuels suck. They are not profitable. Even as we speak, Ethanol's true cost is up above $6/per gallon if not for the government subsidies.

Of course that's why Exxon which refuses to waste it's money on pointless investments like alternative fuels, is the most successful and profittable of all oil companies. Given my 401K has stock in Exxon, that's what I want them doing... investing in oil... hence... oil company. That's what they should invest in. Not dumb bio-diesel or wind mills.

Here is my issue. You claim that real investment would happen if oil prices were higher... well, real investment is already happening, and oil prices are higher. We have been since the 70s. All they have come up with thus far, is crap. Useless wind mills... pointless moonshine... fiscally inept solar panels, and the list goes on.

Let me ask you this. Do a risk reward assessment: Under your plan, we force cutting of imported oil. Automatically, by us not importing, our demand is removed from the world oil market. The cost of oil will drop. Now, what happens to us if no one finds the magic wand that pops a replacement fuel into existence? What happens if a new source of energy isn't found?

We are going to end up paying $200 a barrel for oil. (supply and demand: Supply 7 Million a day, demand 20.8 a day) Maybe more. We'll have country wide gas shortages. The thousand of products based on oil will jump in price (rubber, plastics, chemicals of all kinds).

Meanwhile our international competitors will be paying $30/barrel. Their economies will boom while we bust. Corporations in countries with cheap energy will be able to create the same products we do at a fraction of the cost.

 

[Pidgey]

In the strictest sense, you'll want to separate LPG and electric cars from your list of alternative energy sources. Hydrogen's a little "iffy", too, as it requires just as much energy to make it (more, if you consider the standard energy conversion efficiency losses) as you get from its combustion.

The EROEI on oil shales is pretty bad and the same goes for tar sands, actually. That means it doesn't become economic to truly use the stuff until the price of "conventional oil" gets pretty high. The economics studies rarely, if ever, tell the whole story because they usually understate the CAPEX (capital expenditures) and OPEX (operating expenditures) realities.

You can go straight to the Wikipedia for oil shale and read a summary on that but one of the things that it didn't and can't do is keep up with the rising costs of the steel to build a processing plant, for instance. Our costs (the company that I work for) on materials (plate, beam, pipe, instrumentation, et-frickin'-cetera) are literally going through the roof these last few years. When we get an RFQ (request-for-quote), we can't guarantee prices for months like we used to be able to do, due to the almost exponential rise in materials' costs. A lot of that is a very rapidly rising demand and some of that's spiralling energy costs. For the demand part, mills and suppliers are having to work overtime to try and keep up, and are still having a hard time meeting deliveries due to personnel shortages as well as simply not having enough equipment to provide the required supply. It's a sellers' market bigtime in the petrochemical engineering and drafting sectors right now as salaries have just about doubled in the last decade, with so many working ungodly amounts of overtime due to the lack of suitable people. Hell, I'd even start smoking but I don't have the time!

Pidgey

 

[Libsmasher]

Since the late 90s, Saudi Arabia has openly stated their goal of keeping the price around $50/barrel. I don't have a link for that, but I remember reading that many times in the late 90s when the price went down to about $10 or so a barrel.

And what would the free market price have been in the absence of OPEC collusion?

 

[Andy]

And what would the free market price have been in the absence of OPEC collusion?

Who knows. I think you missed the point though. $50 a barrel is the current goal... are they hitting it? So maybe they don't have quite as much control as you think.

 

[Libsmasher]

Who knows. I think you missed the point though. $50 a barrel is the current goal... are they hitting it? So maybe they don't have quite as much control as you think.

The current high price is just market psychology driven by speculators. The bubble will burst, and I predict a price point of "only" $100 before the end of this year. And you think they don't have control, because you have this idea that they exist to keep oil prices low - I claim they exist to keep them high - which side's position is borne out by the market?

 

[Andy]

The current high price is just market psychology driven by speculators. The bubble will burst, and I predict a price point of "only" $100 before the end of this year. And you think they don't have control, because you have this idea that they exist to keep oil prices low - I claim they exist to keep them high - which side's position is borne out by the market?

Oh now you did something I really really hate. You put words in my mouth I didn't speak. Do not ever do that again Libsmasher. Ever. I may have had a goodly amount of respect for you, but you just dinged your credit big time. I would never do that to you, so don't do it to me. Understood?

I did not say that "OPEC exists to keep prices low" or high or anything. I repeated their openly stated goal of keeping oil prices at $50/barrel, and that is exactly what they said. Now if you want to start acting like a Liberal yourself, and making up false statements to attack, jump off a cliff. I have no time for that crap.

OPEC exists neither to keep prices high or low. OPEC's primary purpose is to stabilize prices. That is their stated goal, and in looking at their track record of increasing production when prices are high, and decreasing when they are too low, that is exactly what they have aimed to do.

What does the market bare out? Well... given that OPEC is currently producing at near maximum production (see the wiki table from prior post), and given that in prior years, OPEC has raised quotas in order to reduce prices, I would say my assessment is correct.

I think you may not realize that even without OPEC, prices would fluctuate as much or more than they do now. Let's say everyone drills and pumps and floods the market with oil. With the price of crude oil so cheap, there would be no profit. Without profit to invest in new wells, as demand increased, the prices would shoot back up. Then with high profits, new wells and exploration (as is occurring), and the cycle would repeat.

For example, during the 70s price controls, the oil companies couldn't make any profit at all on oil, and thus drilling and investing almost completely ceased in the US. In the late 90s the price of international crude got so low that U.S. oil wells were being shut off. The cost to ship from the smaller wells made pumping oil unprofitable. The cost to simply have the pump run, and the cost of trucking it to the refinery, actually exceeded the amount the barrel could be sold for.

OPEC's purpose was to stabilize prices. That's it. Right now the problem is, they can't. The demand has out grown capacity, due to the war, due to OPEC members now reinvesting into oil production, due to socialism in some spots, and of course, as you mentioned, the futures markets, which of course will bust at some point. Even the latest from Exxon's CEO makes clear he doesn't know what the future holds. Russia has huge oil reserves and if it would just invest in it, they could pump enough oil to flood the market. If any of the big three economies tanks, that could drop demand and crash the prices. Anything can happen in the oil world.

 

[Andy]

In the strictest sense, you'll want to separate LPG and electric cars from your list of alternative energy sources. Hydrogen's a little "iffy", too, as it requires just as much energy to make it (more, if you consider the standard energy conversion efficiency losses) as you get from its combustion.

I was making a general list of projects funded by the government in the name of alternative fuel research. Of course, some of these are not even remotely alternative energy sources.

Hydrogen, the biggest scam in US history, closely followed by Ethanol, is not an energy source. An energy source, is something that exists in nature, that can be simply collected and used. Oil is found in nature. Solar is found in nature. Wood, Coal, Hydropower, is all found in nature, and only requires being harvested.

So, how many Hydrogen wells have you seen lately? How many Hydrogen crops have we harvested? Can we tap the hydrogen geyser in the park? Let's go empty our barrel full of hydrogen from the hydrogen collector outside!

Point? Hydrogen gas doesn't exist at all in nature. It must be created. Therefore, it can not be a "source" of energy. What does this mean? It means that Hydrogen must be created... FROM... another energy source. For example Electrolysis. If we make hydrogen from Electrolysis, what is the Energy source? It's whatever fuel was used to make the electricity, that created the hydrogen.

Of course, each time energy changes forms, you lose some (normally in heat). Thus, hydrogen automatically has a disadvantage over nearly all other energy types because it must change forms more times.

As I said... it's a scam.

The EROEI on oil shales is pretty bad and the same goes for tar sands, actually. That means it doesn't become economic to truly use the stuff until the price of "conventional oil" gets pretty high. The economics studies rarely, if ever, tell the whole story because they usually understate the CAPEX (capital expenditures) and OPEX (operating expenditures) realities.

All true. However this current market makes it profitable. With high priced crude, the profit margin is enough to fund the initial expenses (CAPEX), and then once done, the operating costs should be manageable (OPEX). If the price of crude oil drops too low, the refinery can be shut down until the price is high enough to justify it.

With that said, the biggest issue in my book is that there are still billions of barrels of oil still not even discovered, simply because our government refuses to allow exploration, or even with exploration, no drilling, which to many companies makes exploration a waste of capital.

It's a sellers' market bigtime in the petrochemical engineering and drafting sectors right now as salaries have just about doubled in the last decade, with so many working ungodly amounts of overtime due to the lack of suitable people. Hell, I'd even start smoking but I don't have the time!

Pidgey

What does a drafter do? I admit I have no interest in petrochemical engineering. Playing with chemicals is very boring to me. "Oh look I made it blue... it's still greasy though" joy joy.

 

[Pidgey]

A refining process generally requires a host of individual components that have to be assembled. Project engineers work with drafting designers to make the drawings to build them from.

There are many reasons that oil's getting more expensive, creating a "stackup". In the US, you also have to deal with the EPA and environmental laws that are standing in the way of building the equipment that we're going to need to process unconventional oil sources.

Someone on another site once pointed out that the problem isn't peak oil in the most absolute sense, but rather the problem is peak free energy in the thermodynamic sense. You add up everything together, including the absolute failure of so many people in America to simply live within their means by which they're crashing the value of the dollar in foreign markets, and you get what we have today.

Pidgey

 

[Libsmasher]

Oh now you did something I really really hate. You put words in my mouth I didn't speak. Do not ever do that again Libsmasher. Ever. I may have had a goodly amount of respect for you, but you just dinged your credit big time. I would never do that to you, so don't do it to me. Understood?

I did not say that "OPEC exists to keep prices low" or high or anything. I repeated their openly stated goal of keeping oil prices at $50/barrel, and that is exactly what they said. Now if you want to start acting like a Liberal yourself, and making up false statements to attack, jump off a cliff. I have no time for that crap.

"Splutter! Spurt! BLABALABLA BLAH BLAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Get hold of yourself dude!

OPEC exists neither to keep prices high or low. OPEC's primary purpose is to stabilize prices. That is their stated goal, and in looking at their track record of increasing production when prices are high, and decreasing when they are too low, that is exactly what they have aimed to do.

What does the market bare out? Well... given that OPEC is currently producing at near maximum production (see the wiki table from prior post), and given that in prior years, OPEC has raised quotas in order to reduce prices, I would say my assessment is correct.

I think you may not realize that even without OPEC, prices would fluctuate as much or more than they do now. Let's say everyone drills and pumps and floods the market with oil. With the price of crude oil so cheap, there would be no profit. Without profit to invest in new wells, as demand increased, the prices would shoot back up. Then with high profits, new wells and exploration (as is occurring), and the cycle would repeat.

For example, during the 70s price controls, the oil companies couldn't make any profit at all on oil, and thus drilling and investing almost completely ceased in the US. In the late 90s the price of international crude got so low that U.S. oil wells were being shut off. The cost to ship from the smaller wells made pumping oil unprofitable. The cost to simply have the pump run, and the cost of trucking it to the refinery, actually exceeded the amount the barrel could be sold for.

OPEC's purpose was to stabilize prices. That's it. Right now the problem is, they can't. The demand has out grown capacity, due to the war, due to OPEC members now reinvesting into oil production, due to socialism in some spots, and of course, as you mentioned, the futures markets, which of course will bust at some point. Even the latest from Exxon's CEO makes clear he doesn't know what the future holds. Russia has huge oil reserves and if it would just invest in it, they could pump enough oil to flood the market. If any of the big three economies tanks, that could drop demand and crash the prices. Anything can happen in the oil world.

OPEC is there to stabilize prices, huh? Is that why they embargoed oil sales to the US in 1973? And the low prices of the 90s wasn't from a concern to "stabilize prices" - it was fallout from the disruption of OPEC after two of its principle members, Iran and Iraq, fought a bitter war that caused the deaths of millions of people.

 

[Libsmasher]

You add up everything together, including the absolute failure of so many people in America to simply live within their means by which they're crashing the value of the dollar in foreign markets, and you get what we have today.

Pidgey

Good point.

 

[GenSeneca]

Greetings all,

I read through 6 pages in order to catch up to where you are now, but please forgive me if I missed something already brought up that contradicts my statements. I will be glad to discuss any part of my post in greater detail as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------

Economy vs. Enviornment

Gasoline is a fossil fuel. Ones positions and policies about the use of fossil fuels seems entirely predicated by their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming. It is entirely possible, and well within our current means, to eliminate huge quantities of MMGHG without declaring war on Fossil Fuels and the companies that produce them. There is also no need for self inflicted economic hardships such as the cap and trade system. (Supported by McCain and Obama, )

The reality is that America currently runs on Fossil Fuels.

Fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas -- currently provide more than 85% of all the energy consumed in the United States, nearly two-thirds of our electricity, and virtually all of our transportation fuels. Moreover, it is likely that the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels to power an expanding economy will actually increase over at least the next two decades even with aggressive development and deployment of new renewable and nuclear technologies. DOE

The Left has declared war on fossil fuels and every piece of legislation the Democrats propose reflects this unfortunate reality, some of which you can read about HERE in a recent RSC report. Even more unfortunate is the Democrats (and Republicans) unwillingness to support the most effective, and currently existing, alternative solutions in favor of developing an entirely new technology - promised as sometime in the "near future" - or subsidizing failed technologies to secure votes, aka Corn based Ethanol. (Republicans like corn votes too, don't think they escape my criticism for culpability)

(My apologies, the graph is not also from the DOE but its information is within 1% of the DOE's and the breakdown in representation is accurate enough to be useful for this discussion)

Refined oil provides far more than Gasoline, plastics being one such vital product, and a national policy of eliminating domestic oil from the equation is suicidal.

So lets look at that graph again... Roughly 54% of our energy comes from Coal, Nat Gas and Nuclear - all of which the Democrats oppose as energy sources, due to emissions and radioactive byproducts, and they actively seek to eliminate these sources from domestic supply through legislation. None of these sources are used directly for transportation.

Lets also look at Hydroelectric, which to date, is actually less than 50% of our "alternative" energy source. Democrats have opposed Hydro expansion and are actually working to reduce it as a source. Hydro also has no effect on transportation.

This brings me to Wind power:

Good wind areas, which cover 6% of the contiguous U.S. land area, have the potential to supply more than one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the United States. DOE

Wind power can provide 150% of domestic electricity consumption, in case you missed it.

Not surprisingly, Democrats claim to support Wind power during campaigns but vote against the expansion and development of wind power in Congress. (Republicans keep limiting themselves by ignoring wind power and other economically viable alternatives, pushing only for "clean fossil" instead... which I'll get to later but this myopic position makes them look like the oil company shills they are accused of being)

Getting to the point

Now before you think I've completely derailed myself from the actual topic, my attempt was to provide a backdrop for our total energy sources and consumption, as well as the divergent positions held by our legislators.

If the idea is to eliminate US carbon emissions, and other hazardous byproducts, as quickly as possible, without turning America into a 3rd world nation, then it seems only logical we should focus on replacing the 54% of our energy that comes from coal, nat gas and Nuclear with something like Wind power first and then look at ways to deal with transportation during this process of transition.

In the time it would take to build the necessary infrastructure, batteries and their capability would continue to see advances as well. Once WP is capable of providing 100% of the nations domestic, non-transportation, electricity needs, any additional electricity can be used for transportation - to power electric vehicles - individual as well as mass transit.

Combined with the recent advances in nano-solar technology, I think its entirely possible to transform America's current life blood, oil, to alternatives such as wind power and solar within 50 years... And without lowering the American standard of living.

US DOMESTIC OIL POLICY - as proposed by GenSeneca:

50 years is long term, so lets look at what we can do in the short and medium terms to insulate ourselves from the worldwide cost of oil:

Congress should remove its legislative and environmental obstacles for domestic exploration, expansion and utilization of oil. Thats not to say we allow companies to do so irresponsibly, standards of ecological stewardship would still apply and be vigorously enforced.

Taking the ceiling off domestic oil production would reverse the trends of speculators (who are reasonably interpreting the long term effects of limiting/eliminating US domestic oil production and greatly influencing the current price) and have an immediate impact on cost projections.

The "clean" fossil technologies, mentioned earlier, should also continue to be encouraged through legislation. Implementing cleaner and more efficient use of fossil fuels should be a legislative priority and not a point of contention between the parties.

*Assuming we eliminate the need for fossil fuels in all areas but transportation, we can focus 100% of fossil fuel resources to transportation and remove ourselves from the World market as far as oil is concerned. Only oil produced domestically would be allowed to be sold in America - zero imports. Yes, this would require a relatively high cost per barrel but the domestic market would be very stable and not at all affected by OPEC and other crude producers.*

Conclusion

We cannot realistically eliminate our use of Fossil fuels anytime soon. The focus should be on removing obstacles that retard development, not strictly reducing emissions, this way we can exploit the technology to its fullest potential before we eventually abandon it. We are going to need it to get through the decades of prosperity necessary for our eventual transformation to alternatives and renewable energy.

People who cannot afford Energy - food, gasoline, electricity etc. - will give a crap about the environment. Its only when our needs are taken care of that we try to improve our environment. (One of the presidential candidates has even said Americans should expect a reduction in their standard of living under his policies... and he actually won his party's nomination with such campaign promises)

Government cannot mandate technological innovation. It cannot make us energy independent by limiting our resources. It cannot tax us into alternative prosperity.... but that doesn't stop them from trying. Whats truly puzzling is that they get RE-ELECTED for doing so.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Aside from my introduction, this is my very first post on this forum...
I hope to meet your high standards but please be gentle if I haven't.

 

[Andy]

"Splutter! Spurt! BLABALABLA BLAH BLAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Get hold of yourself dude!

Ok Liblover. Find someone else to talk to. Now I understand why people treat you dirt on this forum... you act like dirt.

 

[Libsmasher]

Ok Liblover. Find someone else to talk to. Now I understand why people treat you dirt on this forum... you act like dirt.

You went bananas over a single misinterpretation I allegedly made - take a tranquilizer and calm down. And people "treat me like dirt"???? Actually, I crush THEM into the mud.

 

[Andy]

Gasoline is a fossil fuel. Ones positions and policies about the use of fossil fuels seems entirely predicated by their position on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I disagree with both concepts above. I do not believe that Gasoline, or oil, is made from fossils. I see little evidence, other than a bunch saying it must be so, that suggests there is a connection between the two.

Further, I see no real evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Same deal as above.

Further, the information I have reviewed suggests the opposite on oil, and very little, if any effect on 'AGW'.

It is entirely possible, and well within our current means, to eliminate huge quantities of MMGHG without declaring war on Fossil Fuels and the companies that produce them. There is also no need for self inflicted economic hardships such as the cap and trade system. (Supported by McCain and Obama

Agreed, although I do not see a need to reduce MMGHGs at all.

Lets also look at Hydroelectric, which to date, is actually less than 50% of our "alternative" energy source. Democrats have opposed Hydro expansion and are actually working to reduce it as a source. Hydro also has no effect on transportation.

Which is one reason I oppose all government funded alternative energy. Since they oppose the alternative energy sources we currently have, how do we know after billions spent from the tax payer funded grants... they won't oppose whatever alternative fuel is found? We don't, because they do already. So let's not do this foolish plan.

Wind power can provide 150% of domestic electricity consumption, in case you missed it.

From what little real energy assessment has been done for wind power, I'm not finding much real viability. Here is what I've discovered.

The issue with wind power is, it can't actually replace a conventional source of power. This is because wind isn't something that can be depended on. When the wind stops, the power does too. So a conventional source of energy must be used in conjunction.

But it doesn't end there either. As you all know, both Nuclear and Coal fired plants use the heat energy to super heat water which then runs a steam generator. As anyone who has made noodles knows, heating water takes time, quite a bit of time.

So even when the wind is blowing, and the mills are generating, that conventional power plant with coal burning, or nuclear reaction going, must be at operational standby. Otherwise, if the wind stops, half the state would be in a black out before the conventional power plant got up to operational level.

Combined with the recent advances in nano-solar technology, I think its entirely possible to transform America's current life blood, oil, to alternatives such as wind power and solar within 50 years... And without lowering the American standard of living.

I'll look into that. Last time I did research on solar panels, (about a year ago), they were horrible. The amount of power consumed in the production of the panel itself, was vastly more than the panel would ever produce over it's lifespan. Then, the cost involved in purchasing the created panel, would was far greater than you'd ever save using it. If I remember right, at best estimates, it would take around 70 years to break even on a solar panel on the average house, assuming it didn't degrade every year, which they do.

Congress should remove its legislative and environmental obstacles for domestic exploration, expansion and utilization of oil.

Thank you. Finely someone else talking reasonable sense.

Taking the ceiling off domestic oil production would reverse the trends of speculators

Explain! I hope you are not suggesting there is a domestically enforced oil production cap? That would tick me off even more.

*Assuming we eliminate the need for fossil fuels in all areas but transportation, we can focus 100% of fossil fuel resources to transportation and remove ourselves from the World market as far as oil is concerned.

I thought you rightly pointed out that we can't eliminate oil from use in other areas of the economy, such as plastic?

Government cannot mandate technological innovation. It cannot make us energy independent by limiting our resources. It cannot tax us into alternative prosperity.... but that doesn't stop them from trying. Whats truly puzzling is that they get RE-ELECTED for doing so.

Well you just posted to a thread started by someone who wanted government for force us off oil by mandate with an artificial shortage of oil. So there's your answer. People really do trust government with ... well everything. I keep asking why everyone trusts politicians and lawyers so much.

 

[GenSeneca]

Scuze me, while I Fisk this guy:

I disagree with both concepts above. I do not believe that Gasoline, or oil, is made from fossils. I see little evidence, other than a bunch saying it must be so, that suggests there is a connection between the two.

Semantics as far as I'm concerned... "Fossil Fuels" are what the Environmental Left has declared war on and seek to eliminate asap.

Further, I see no real evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Same deal as above.

The evidence is there, its just incredibly vauge. Saying Humans "have an effect" on the environment is true but it ends there for GW enthusiasts - without the need for a quantitative analysis to understand the significance (or insignificance) of our contribution.

If our contribution to GW is 0.001%, thats still an effect, and more than enough to plunge us into third world socialism as far as some are concerned.

Further, the information I have reviewed suggests the opposite on oil, and very little, if any effect on 'AGW'.

There is not a single peer reviewed report that eliminates "natural causes" as the reason for global warming.

Agreed, although I do not see a need to reduce MMGHGs at all.

Me either.

The entire point is, if reducing GHG's was really the goal... (and not just an excuse for socialism)

Which policy would make more sense?

A. Something like what I have proposed

or

B. The policy Democrats are pursuing in Congress. i.e. Subsidizing failed and untested technologies on the backs of Oil companies and Consumers

This is where GW enthusiasts need to take a long hard look at the disparity between what politicians say they want to do - to get you to vote for them, and what they actually propose through legislation in our Congress.

If the goal is to reduce GHG's, Democrat policy will be a failure. If the policy is meant to punish capitalism right down to the consumer, its a huge success.

Which is one reason I oppose all government funded alternative energy. Since they oppose the alternative energy sources we currently have, how do we know after billions spent from the tax payer funded grants... they won't oppose whatever alternative fuel is found? We don't, because they do already. So let's not do this foolish plan.

I also oppose all forms of taxpayer subsidies. Incentives in my policies include eliminating taxes on business and corporations, including but not limited to property taxes.

From what little real energy assessment has been done for wind power, I'm not finding much real viability.

Believe it or not, Environmentalists are the biggest impediment to the Viability of ALL alternative energy with the exception of Solar.

I'll look into that. Last time I did research on solar panels, (about a year ago), they were horrible.

"Nanosolar is a developer of solar power technology. Based in Palo Alto, CA, Nanosolar has developed and commercialized an extremely low-cost printable solar cell manufacturing process. The company started selling panels mid-December 2007, and plans to profitably sell them at around $1 per watt. -WIKI"

Its really a huge step forward, greatly reducing the complexity and cost of harvesting solar energy.

Thank you. Finely someone else talking reasonable sense.

We can be 100% energy independent AND reduce our GHG's at the same time. But like I said, reducing GHG's is not the real goal of the left - attacking capitalism is.

Explain! I hope you are not suggesting there is a domestically enforced oil production cap?

Only in so far as American oil companies are limited in their expansion possibilities for new wells and refineries. If the feilds they are pumping right now are the last ones they ever get to drill - they have to nurse the wells to get oil out for as long as possible. Technically its not by government mandate but by virtue of supply and demand, the domestic production is indeed voluntarily capped to prevent premature exploitation of wells. We could double our production at the risk of "burning" out some delicate wells but even if we did... theres just not enough refining capacity to handle it.

I thought you rightly pointed out that we can't eliminate oil from use in other areas of the economy, such as plastic?

Quite correct... I was speaking within the context of eliminating the 54% of energy that comes from Coal, nat gas and nuclear (add in Fuel Oil too). Once those are eliminated, 100% of our oil can go for transportation... Gasoline is just one of the byproducts from refining crude oil. That same barrel refines into ethylene which is a primary compound of many plastics. So you see, they don't compete with each other - refining to get one gets us the other as well.

Well you just posted to a thread started by someone who wanted government for force us off oil by mandate with an artificial shortage of oil. So there's your answer. People really do trust government with ... well everything. I keep asking why everyone trusts politicians and lawyers so much.

If you take responsibility on your own shoulders... who can you blame when things don't turn out the way you hoped?