Politics | Politics of Energy


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: teevee who wrote (30291)3/11/2012 5:59:15 PM
From: Eric   of 40062
 
They can't dump it anymore. Buried in sealed containers that can't leak maybe but not in wells.

Those days are over. EPA won't let you do it. In Washington State its prohibited.

ecy.wa.gov 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Eric who wrote (30293)3/11/2012 6:03:47 PM
From: teevee4 Recommendations   of 40062
 
Eric,
There is no way to clean up aquifers polluted with non degradable carcinogens. These aquifers have been destroyed for ever, thanks to your pals in the high tech "green" industry. The legacy of chemical waste pumped into potable water aquifers will last for 1000's of years.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: teevee who wrote (30294)3/11/2012 6:11:50 PM
From: Eric   of 40062
 
Just like your benzene has contaminated soils around leaking gas station tanks for decades.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Eric who wrote (30295)3/11/2012 7:46:08 PM
From: i-node2 Recommendations   of 40062
 
>> Just like your benzene has contaminated soils around leaking gas station tanks for decades.


I just don't think I could survive if I were as worried about all this "toxic" crap as you are.

Take a couple of deep breaths. Earth is a resilient place. You'll make it. Have a little fun in your life. Get yourself a Hemi and enjoy life. You only get one.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: russet3/11/2012 8:25:32 PM
   of 40062
 



Gas Prices Now A Big Factor In Presidential Election March 7, 2012 7:10 PM

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO)
— It might be one of the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential election. Last night, CBS News exit polls found 77 percent of those voting in seven Super Tuesday states say rising gas prices were an important factor in their vote.

minnesota.cbslocal.com 



The poll reflects growing consumer anxiety as gas prices have risen nearly 50 cents a gallon in just over two months.

Consumers have been telling us they are cutting corners because for most driving is a necessity.

In Minnesota the average price is 3-58. The current national average for a gallon of regular is 3-76, but some analysts are predicting that gas could rise to $5 by the summer.

When you are an independent contractor like Tod Matthison, driving 200 to 300 miles a day, rising gas prices mean a smaller paycheck

“I average five hundred to eight hundred dollars a month in gas expense so it really cut into our overhead,” said


Matthison says he would like to cut back, but he can’t
“It’s scary, but what do you do? I have been doing this for 20, 25 years,” said Matthison.

Voters in Super Tuesday contests say gas prices were the most critical factor in their vote. The candidate who made the most dramatic promise to lower gas prices was Newt Gingrich, who said his plan that emphasizes expanded drilling would make gas $2.50 a gallon.

Voters clearly didn’t buy Gingrich’s promise he only won his home state of Georgia. Consumers should be wary of any guarantees, according to one Carlson School of Management Professor. He says the volatility in prices in recent years make fturue prices impossible to

“We don’t know if anybody tells you they know if gas prices are going up or down they just believe in their own magic,”

On Wednesday in Washington D.C., there was a hearing where Republicans and Democrats offered very different views of how to deal with this issue from a policy perspective: Democrats are urging conservation and tax breaks for electric vehicles with Republicans urging a dramatic expansion of drilling.

So, according to the exit polls, that division will be a key factor in elections this fall.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: russet who wrote (30297)3/11/2012 9:13:31 PM
From: teevee   of 40062
 
Yup, if an old and fundamental election rule holds, Obama will learn the hard way that voters vote with their wallets.......

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Brumar893/11/2012 10:29:51 PM
   of 40062
 
Oil, gas industry created 9 percent of new U.S. jobs in 2011:WEF
Posted on March 11, 2012 by Editor | Leave a comment

A booming U.S. oil and gas sector was responsible for generating some 9 percent of all new jobs last year, with three indirect jobs for every one directly involved in the industry, a study released on Wednesday found.

The World Economic Forum report, which highlighted the role that the energy industry can play in reviving the global economy, comes during a presidential election year as candidates argue about high U.S. unemployment and energy policy.

The report said the oil and gas industry contributed 37,000 direct jobs in 2011, which led to the creation of an additional 111,000 indirect jobs during the same period. It said the multiplier effect for solar and wind energy were lower during operation, but higher at up to 3.3 times during construction.

“We always suspected that energy had a vital role to play in the economic recovery but we were still surprised when the data uncovered the magnitude of the sector’s multiplier effects,” Roberto Bocca, head of energy Industries at the World Economic Forum, said in a release.

The domestic U.S. oil and gas industry is in the midst of the its biggest boom in a generation, with hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technology unlocking billions of barrels of oil and decades’ worth of natural gas from previously untappable tight coal seam fissures.

That has ignited a political debate between environmentalists who caution against the impact of “fracking” on water supplies and industry supporters who say the shale oil revolution is helping revive the U.S. economy.

The WEF report also said the energy sector’s highly skilled workforce is well-paid compared to other sectors, with compensation per worker about twice the average in Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States and four times the average in Mexico and South Korea.


junkscience.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: teevee who wrote (30298)3/11/2012 10:31:26 PM
From: puborectalis   of 40062
 
and their wallets are puny compared with Romneys'

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (30299)3/11/2012 10:33:55 PM
From: Brumar89   of 40062
 
Scientists predict… more of whatever we've just had Monday, 12 March 2012 9:21 am · 3 comments

by Simon


Climate astrology


The role of natural variability in climate must be squashed at all costs. Just think of the consequences if natural variability were allowed to persist: we wouldn't be able to "control" the climate by tinkering with a harmless trace gas, and we wouldn't be able to shame Western civilisation into abandoning centuries of progress in order to "save the planet". We might have to just accept what nature throws at us - and adapt.

And, more worryingly for The Cause, we wouldn't be able to fill government and research coffers with taxpayers money, extracted by means of "carbon pricing". And that would be a disaster. So whatever weather phenomenon happens, we can be sure that we will get more of the same, and it will be blamed on "man made global warming" to keep the bandwagon rolling.

For the last decade, Australia has suffered a period of drought. Prior to its recent end, scientists were falling over themselves to say that this was the "new climate" that we must get used to. Paid government hacks like Tim Flannery wailed about dams never filling again, and billions were spent on desalination plants to cater for the future without water.

How things change. After some of the worst floods in recent history in New South Wales, the alarmist Sydney Morning Herald finds a scientist to say that in future we will have… more floods. In other words, more of whatever we've just had:

EXPERTS PREDICT SURGE IN FLOODS

SPORTS fields, car parks and parklands will be important assets; houses will have walls that open, and some people might need to lose their water views to prepare for bigger, more frequent floods due to global warming, according to experts contacted by the Herald.

As global temperatures rise, short storm bursts will increase in frequency and severity, resulting in more flash flooding, especially in urban areas. But the outlook for longer periods of extreme rain, such as those that caused the flooding of the Darling, Lachlan and Murrumbidgee rivers, and which made the Warragamba Dam overflow this year, is less certain.

There is consensus in the scientific literature that ''the flooding that happens on small urban type of catchments, which is a result of short rainfall bursts, is going up, because convection is intensifying'', Professor Ashish Sharma, an Australian Research Council future fellow in the school of civil and environmental engineering at the University of NSW, said.

He said it was ''99 per cent sure'' that the cause was global warming. A warmer atmosphere holds more water and releases it in shorter bursts, as seen in the tropics, Professor Sharma said.

And notice that they have a bob each way - claiming that long term trends are less certain - so we can have more floods AND more drought and they'll be right in both cases! There's more:

What scientists agree on is that the assumption the future climate will mirror the past, known among scientists as ''stationarity'', no longer holds. This has implications for flood planning.

''This represents a major break with past practice'', Seth Westra, a senior lecturer in the school of civil, environmental and mining engineering at the University of Adelaide, said.

''The notion that the climatic drivers of flooding are changing through time not only poses profound challenges on how we estimate future floods, but also challenges the way we design [for] and manage future floods,'' he said in a paper written for the federal government-funded National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. ( source)

How anyone could possibly "assume" that future climate will mirror the past, when climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years, is almost incredible. Even without the AGW scare, climate has always changed, over every time period, and always will.

What's so amazing about this kind of article is the almost unbelievable lack of any historical perspective. So desperate are the Herald to link any weather phenomenon to global warming (especially with the Herald-sponsored Earth Hour just around the corner), that they will purposefully find a scientist who will say the right thing.

The unfalsifiable hypothesis gets stronger, and ever closer to climate astrology.



australianclimatemadness.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Brumar893/12/2012 7:07:46 AM
1 Recommendation   of 40062
 
Obama's energy abyss

He keeps wasting money on renewables
Sunday, March 11, 2012
By Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," Steven Chu, now the energy secretary, said in a 2008 interview with the Wall Street Journal.

A gallon of regular costs more than $8 there. The Oil Price Information Service thinks the average price here will rise to $4.25 a gallon by the end of April. That would exceed the record of $4.11, set in July 2008.

A gallon of regular cost just $1.85 the day before President Barack Obama was inaugurated. If the price were to double again during a second Obama term, Mr. Chu's goal could be achieved.

Sen. Obama expressed little concern when the price of gas was approaching the current record high.

"I would have preferred a more gradual adjustment," he told CNBC in a June 2008 interview. "But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment ... then I think we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy."

Earlier, Mr. Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that "under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

Secretary Chu has backed away from his infamous quote. But that was political expediency. Democrats want high energy prices, but not the blame for them.

"If you are a politician who wants to raise the price of gas, you have two choices," said Prof. Walter Russell Mead. "You can persuade the military leadership to install you in office through a coup d'etat, or you can lie to the voters and pursue your agenda on the sly."

Democrats want higher energy prices mostly to make alternative sources of energy seem economical. That's a tall order. The Energy Information Administration estimates the cost of generating a megawatt hour of electricity from a new plant would be 66 cents from plants powered by natural gas; 86 cents from hydro; 95 cents from coal; 97 cents from wind; $1.13 from biomass; $1.14 from nuclear, and $3.12 from solar thermal.

Only wind appears competitive. But industrial wind turbines are eyesores, they kill a lot of birds and bats, and -- as sweltering Texans and shivering Britons have learned -- tend not to work when it is very hot or very cold.

The Obama administration's massive subsidies to "green" firms have produced more embarrassment than energy. Solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, which went bankrupt last September after receiving $535 million, has left behind an environmental mess. Eleven other subsidized firms are having financial problems and five have filed for bankruptcy, CBS News reported in January.

In his state of the union address this year, President Barack Obama cited battery manufacturer Ener1 as a government investment success. Ener1 filed for bankruptcy two days later.

A few days after Mr. Obama said he planned to buy a Chevy Volt, General Motors announced it will suspend production of the electric car. About 1,300 workers will lose their jobs, at least temporarily.

The $38.6 billion in loan guarantees it provided to "green" firms created just 3,545 permanent new jobs, according to a Department of Energy estimate. That's an average cost of $5 million per job.

Mr. Obama's "investments" haven't been bad for all of us. Eighty percent of the firms that got DOE loans are run or owned by the president's financial backers, according to the Hoover Institution's Peter Schweizer. "Green Firms Get Fed Cash, Give Execs Bonuses, Fail," headlined an ABC News investigative report broadcast Tuesday.

In what was billed as a "major speech" on energy policy Feb. 23, the president pledged to make more such "investments."

The speech was remarkable for its mendacity. During the Obama administration, the time it takes to get a permit to drill in the Gulf of Mexico has nearly doubled. Leases to drill on federal lands in the West are down 40 percent. But Mr. Obama claimed credit for the recent rise in domestic production of oil and natural gas. This "couldn't be farther from the truth," said the president of the American Petroleum Institute.

We can't drill our way to lower gas prices, Mr. Obama said. The Institute for Energy Research says there are 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil in the United States and offshore, "enough to last at least 200 years." But most are on public lands. Government policy keeps them locked up.

"The administration has done everything but support drilling," said retired Shell oil company executive John Hofmeister. "We are on the verge of slipping into an energy abyss."




Read more: http://post-gazette.com/pg/12071/1215615-373.stm#ixzz1otpfkJZ8

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.