I've said this on a couple of other threads about the price of gas needs to hit $6-$8 a gallon before we, the folks, get mad enough to start getting serious about exploring and drilling for oil. Neil Cavuto was interviewing Sen Cardin (D, Maryland) this evening. Sen Cardin is on the Judicuary(sp) committee that was beating up on the oil execs today. Cavuto bought up a great point that I think most of the folks can agree with. The answer to our energy independence is a comprehensive plan that will include everything such as drilling, research on alternative energy, conservation, etc. The poor Senator could not bring himself to acknowledge exploration and drilling has to be part of the package. He seemed like he wanted to agree on that but just couldn't pull the trigger and abandon the party line. I'm starting to wonder if his non-typical behavior is indicative of a future crack in the Dem party line? I am wondering if he and other Dems/Libs in Congress are starting to feel the heat from the regular folks? I might have to lower my estimate from $6-$8 down to $5-$7 a gallon. I think we will see the drilling topic as a key factor in the general election as people have to walk to the polling places. Both parties will need to work together at the end of the day to lead us thru this.

Now, if I was a Repub strategist, I would have the Dem nominee's picture plastered next to every gas station out there, especially if it goes above $5 by election time. If Sen Clinton and Operation Chaos come thru, I would add former Prez Clinton's picture too. He vetoed a bill or two (circa 1998??) that would have got us started in the right direction. That is one piece of his vast legacy.

very interesting post, john. i believe we'll see that area being drilled soon, as well. but i also believe we need to truly focus on other non-crude oil alternatives to rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil sources.

i listened to a local talk show host the other day who proposed an interesting idea using standard nuclear power sites across america.
he was hoping the u.s. govt. would develop a "manhattan project" approach to the idea.
just make it happen. imagine the employment that would suddenly appear from the building and running of the facilities. more importantly, these nuclear powered plants could supply more than enough electrical energy to power large scale mass transit (people and cargo/goods) across the u.s. (imagine the employment that would suddenly appear from the building and running of these rail lines).

just food for thought, but i liked his idea.
what'cha think, mate?

Let me throw out a thought for you ... if nuke energy is so efficient, why do the operators barely make anything (I'm talking ROI). I've worked for nuke operators Detroit Edison, Constellation (9-mile) and Dominion. Now, I don't know, and I'm not privy to their books, but these plants are incredibly expensive to operate, in terms of maintenance costs, personnel requirements, insurance, fuel costs and fuel disposal costs.

Permitting issues and NIMBY may affect a lot of future plans, but it is just disingenuous to believe that a plant that requires 200 employees, all extremely well paid (the janitors made 80 grand at 9-mile), and they just don't have the output! Around 1000 MW - that ain't much.

This guy (he has an important sounding title)says that we are now in the "good old days", and that gas prices will hit $12 to $15 a gallon. http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080521145247.aspx

Clean nuke power was another part of that package. I didn't know it was so expensive to run a nuke plant. I might have to research that to learn more. Doesn't nuke output depend on the size of the reactor??

Wind energy was another piece of the pie. Wasn't it just recently someone tried to put the windmills on Marthas Vineyard and the local folks shot it down (Kennedy's?)??? The other argument against windmills was they whack the birds dumb enough to fly thru them. There was a huge windmill farm south of Bandon, OR. It was still being used last time I flew by.

I agree that we need to drill and refine our own oil. However, i think we are over looking the monetary side of this issue. If you go back to the early 1960's gas was about 31 cents. As you probably know after 1965 all of our money were made made out of 90% silver (halves were 40% silver from 1965-1970 and also Ike dollars from 1971-1976). Now our money is not backed by anything and the coins that jingle in our pockets is nothing but clad.

So lets say we have 3 pre-1964 dimes in our pocket. If you calculate the silver melt value into those 3 dimes it equal $3.90 which is approximatley the price of a gallon of gasoline.

In short the only thing that has really changed is the value of the FRNs. Our FRNs are worthless and becomes more worthless every time the fed decides to lower their intrests rates. We need to go back when our money was worth more than the paper it was printed on.

They have windmills out in the California desert, not sure what power they are but they spin all the time

Nuke power died in this country because of greed and a lack of accountability from the NRC.

France made it happen (80% of electricity production) due to a heavily regulated government program? I am a afraid that is the only answer, but that will fail due to conservative ideology for the same reasons exploration has failed due to liberal ideology.

Right now there is zero leadership on the energy issue. Various parties "profit" from the crisis. Big oil is just taking advantage of the opportunity to reap profits (but is their return on investment that high?) and various alternative energy advocates say it is time to built more... [fill in the blank]

Folks, what is the real story? Just how much energy do we consume? How much can we realistically produce from sources other than petroleum? What about the nuke waste disposal issue? Will breeder reactors create too much weapons grade plutonium? What is total potential for wind solar and hydro?

What we need to do is both find ways of producing clean sustainable sources of energy and promote more energy efficiency in all areas of consumption. It won't happen overnight, we will still have to use oil and coal to get there carbon units or not.

Now here is the biggie, the biggest ideology bomb...

...how large a world population can we support based upon energy consumption?

Here is an output chart for General Electrics new 1.5 MW wind turbine:



This is what it is telling you:
* Does not start rotating until wind speed reaches 9 mph.
* Enough output for about 45 homes at wind speed of 18 mph.
* Capacity output, enough to supply 150 homes at wind speed of 27 mph.
* Has a 360 degree "swing" diameter of 210 feet.
* Sits on a tower 200 feet high.

Each turbine assembly is about $1 million ... for a device which may or may not be relied upon for output at any given time. I don't think wind turbines are the panacea they're made out to be.

They are not meant to be a panacea but rather a supplement. If they reduce our fossil fuel consumption by as little as 5% they would be worth the investment.

Drilling for oil is not the answer. What makes anyone think the oil prices will drop if we drill domestically? The oil companies will still sell at market prices which may drop a little but not much. The current barrel price of $135.00 reflects greed not the market economy.

If we reduced our consumption by say 10% through alternative fuels what would that do to the price of oil?

Put windmills inside Congress and Senate buildings. There is enough hot air there to keep D.C. running for decades!

quote:

Originally posted by bkreigh:
I agree that we need to drill and refine our own oil. However, i think we are over looking the monetary side of this issue. If you go back to the early 1960's gas was about 31 cents. As you probably know after 1965 all of our money were made made out of 90% silver (halves were 40% silver from 1965-1970 and also Ike dollars from 1971-1976). Now our money is not backed by anything and the coins that jingle in our pockets is nothing but clad.

So lets say we have 3 pre-1964 dimes in our pocket. If you calculate the silver melt value into those 3 dimes it equal $3.90 which is approximatley the price of a gallon of gasoline.

In short the only thing that has really changed is the value of the FRNs. Our FRNs are worthless and becomes more worthless every time the fed decides to lower their intrests rates. We need to go back when our money was worth more than the paper it was printed on.

I agree. The economy is in the dumps, people are looking to the federal government for answers. Well, the government isn't even in charge of our money, the fed is. Congress should do an in depth investigation on the fed, and hopefully get rid of it all together. As long as the fed is in charge of our money, we will always be in debt.

The best thing the government can do for an energy crisis is to get out of the way and let energy companies do what they have to do. When the government gets involved in issues like these, they only mess things up.

For every 1000 people we have 1200 plus vehicles owned and operated. The same 1000 people in china and India produce only 12-25 vehicles operated. These people are starting to buy cars and guess where the oil/gas is going to come from? We may very well be living in the good old days of cheap fuel and don't know it.
I'm hoping that legislation comes through to regulate the energy business along the line of the insurance industry. See how workers comp rates fell with legislation and enforcement of fraud.

Last night while lyeing in bed my wife asked me if we should get some pellet stoves for the house? I'm thinking we have a ton of coal reserves but it takes oil to get it out of the ground etc.... I'm open too suggestions on a good plan of attack for next years heating needs?

Peace,
Dick

quote:

Originally posted by mboccia:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by bkreigh:
I agree that we need to drill and refine our own oil. However, i think we are over looking the monetary side of this issue. If you go back to the early 1960's gas was about 31 cents. As you probably know after 1965 all of our money were made made out of 90% silver (halves were 40% silver from 1965-1970 and also Ike dollars from 1971-1976). Now our money is not backed by anything and the coins that jingle in our pockets is nothing but clad.

So lets say we have 3 pre-1964 dimes in our pocket. If you calculate the silver melt value into those 3 dimes it equal $3.90 which is approximatley the price of a gallon of gasoline.

In short the only thing that has really changed is the value of the FRNs. Our FRNs are worthless and becomes more worthless every time the fed decides to lower their intrests rates. We need to go back when our money was worth more than the paper it was printed on.

I agree. The economy is in the dumps, people are looking to the federal government for answers. Well, the government isn't even in charge of our money, the fed is. Congress should do an in depth investigation on the fed, and hopefully get rid of it all together. As long as the fed is in charge of our money, we will always be in debt.
QUOTE]

If congress would follow The Constitution they shouldnt need to do an investigation on the fed. They are the only ones that have the athority to coin money. For every "dollar" we print we pay intrest on. Therefore, how is it possible to be debt free?

Pull up the charts of Oil, Gold, and the "Dollar". Oil and Gold rise and fall almost the same. The dollar just sits there watching the other two rise to the sky.

You just got to love central banks. Best thing that ever happend to our coutry. Thanks for nothing President Wilson! This is why i say December 23, 1913 was the worst day in our country's history.

i read my post and i hope you dont get the idea that i was attacking/disagreeing with you mboccia. You seem to know the corruption regarding the fed. It was a just a general rant post about the fed and the way the dollar is affecting oil prices. The fed ticks me off to no end. Those foreign private bankers could sit on a sharp stick.

quote:

I'm hoping that legislation comes through to regulate the energy business along the line of the insurance industry.

I hope they regulate better than THAT! Talk to someone from Louisiana who, after faithfully paying their homeowners' insurance premiums for years and years, only to be stiffed by their insurance company after the hurricane, and ask them how well they feel the "insurance industry" is regulated.

Flood insurance is also federally regulated and you pay according to the flood zone you are in. If you have no flood insurance, you get what you get! I live in a 100 year flood zone, though we have had three of those storms since in the 18 years I have lived in this house.

Peace,
Dick

Dick,

I'm thinking of putting in a pellet stove if the remodeling funds hold up.

Pat

quote:

Originally posted by asm3driscoll:
Flood insurance is also federally regulated and you pay according to the flood zone you are in. If you have no flood insurance, you get what you get! I live in a 100 year flood zone, though we have had three of those storms since in the 18 years I have lived in this house.

Peace,
Dick

The problem wasn't that they didn't have flood insurance. The problem was insurance companies falsifying assessments so as not to have to pay.

Pellet stove would be good ... how do you get a rabbit to $hit in the stove?