Watch for libs to suddenly advocate new power plants

[mercury14]

We put a fucking man on the moon we can become energy independent.
It's people like you always says we can't.

Putting a man on the moon is easy. It can be done with sixties computers that are 1/1000th the power of my cell phone.

Energy independence is far more complex and also involves multiple factors that we have little control over.

 

[koalabear]

mercMoron proving how retarded he is again with his partisan song. Obama had nothing to do with the southern pipeline and couldn't stop it. He has to falsely claim it's his baby.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Unable to assail my actual position, you're assigned me one that I don't agree with and attacked it. Your straw man arguments show that you've lost and you're just flailing around.




Hey Mister Logic Cop, we love your hypocritical double standards - liberals can't step into any logic fallacies, but when conservatives do? Well then it's not just okay, it's to be encouraged!

You did not pave an actual "position." If you had taken one, you would have had to defend it; we noted that. We then showed, by way of Obama and AP that shutting down coal plants was not just a desired result, but a reality. Instead of trying to refute that, you lash out at the other posters accusing them of all sorts of logical fallacy and hint at hypocrisy. He did not engage, as far as I can tell in, the logical fallacy of straw man with you, you opened with:

Your article doesn't say the new rules would make it financially nearly impossible to build a new plant. Where are you getting that information?

and then went to this:

It just means coal plants have to buy equipment to reduce their emissions, not that we wont have any new coal plants.

and then sunk to this level:

But you have no proof? You're just making things up again.

Anything that follows that, I do not care about for once again the known liar went off the rails and began accusing everyone else of being a liar...

The lying
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=800325

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Putting a man on the moon is easy. It can be done with sixties computers that are 1/1000th the power of my cell phone.

Energy independence is far more complex and also involves multiple factors that we have little control over.

And yet, we seek government to control it.

Interesting, very interesting.



Rush and Lee are members of Congress, we even have a former Black Panther in it...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My ancestor built the first railroad in this state. He assembled the investors and built a road from Georgia to the Gulf. At the terminus he built wharves and warehouses and a city.

At the same time the state went to work building a railroad from Tallahassee to the Gulf. The distance is about 20 miles across flat land. Twenty years later it wasnt finished.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendancy of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now, it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force.
Madison Federalist 58.

Yeah, let Congress develop green energy.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Second Oil Revolution
By Victor Davis Hanson, NRO
March 29, 2012 12:00 A.M.

The world was reinvented in the 1970s by soaring oil prices and massive transfers of national wealth. It could be again if the price of petroleum crashes — a real possibility given the amazing estimates about the new gas and oil reserves on the North American continent. The Canadian tar sands, deepwater exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, horizontal drilling off the eastern and western American coastlines, fracking in once-untapped sites in North Dakota, and new pipelines from Alaska and Canada could double North American gas and oil production within a decade.

Given that North America in general and the United States in particular might soon be completely autonomous in natural-gas production and without much need of imported oil within a decade, life as we have known it for nearly the last half-century would change radically.

Take the Middle East. The United States currently devotes about $50 billion of its military budget to patrolling the Persian Gulf and stationing thousands of troops in the region.

America was the target of a crippling oil embargo following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Ever since, it has often hedged its support of democratic Israel in fear of oil cutoffs or price hikes from the Middle East. Just as often, the United States finds itself hypocritically calling for democracy while supporting medieval sheikdoms and monarchies in the oil-exporting gulf. Likewise, Western petrodollars seem to find a way into the coffers of terrorists bent on killing Americans and their allies.

But at a time of shrinking defense budgets, an oil-rich America might not need to protect Middle Eastern oil fields and shipping lanes. U.S. foreign policy really could be predicated on the principle of supporting those nations that embrace constitutional government and human rights, without worry that offended dictators, theocrats, and kings would turn off the spigots.

Curbing the voracious American appetite for imported oil could also help lower world petroleum prices for everyone. Poorer nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America would save billions of dollars on their imported-energy bills.

High-cost oil has warped the global system by rewarding luck and punishing accomplishment. Oil-poor countries that earned their wealth through hard work and innovation — China, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, for example — should be rewarded with reduced imported-energy costs, while those that became rich by having someone else find and develop the oil beneath their feet might find their windfalls reduced. Americans tend to admire the earned wealth of China and Japan more than the accidental riches of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Without high-priced oil, Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are just neighborhood loudmouths rather than regional threats.

Unemployment here in the United States has not dipped below 5 percent since February 2008, during the last year of the Bush administration. But some estimates suggest that 3 to 4 million jobs will follow from new gas and oil production alone. That figure is aside from the greater employment that would accrue from reduced energy costs. Farmers, manufacturers, and heavy industries could gain an edge on their overseas competitors, as everything from fertilizer and plastics to shipping and electric power would become less expensive.

America is spending nearly half a trillion dollars a year on imported oil — the greatest contributor to the massive annual U.S. trade deficit. We are also currently borrowing more than a trillion dollars a year to finance chronic budget deficits, which in turn weaken the dollar and make oil imports even more expensive.

But without the drag of high-cost imported oil, the economy would grow more rapidly, and that could shrink both trade and budget deficits — lessening somewhat the need for spending cuts and new taxes.

The problem with green energy has not been the idea, per se, of wind and solar power and electric cars, but the use of massive federal subsidies, in times of record fossil-fuel prices, to rush into commercial production technologies that are not yet cost-competitive or reliable. The president recently talked of vast algae reserves. True, energy-rich scum may prove to be helpful in the distant future. But right now we don’t have the money to find out — unless we tap our burgeoning fossil-fuel supplies, which can provide a critical bridge to new sources of green energy.

The world was transformed for the worse in the 1970s, when world oil prices quadrupled. A half-century later, it could change again for the better should oil prices crash. We should do our part in ensuring that at last the tables are turned.

That's why I say Natural as is the next logical target.

That's why we are hearing the wailing and gnashing of teeth; they want to use the government as a religious charitable foundation.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You did not pave an actual "position." If you had taken one, you would have had to defend it; we noted that. We then showed, by way of Obama and AP that shutting down coal plants was not just a desired result, but a reality. Instead of trying to refute that, you lash out at the other posters accusing them of all sorts of logical fallacy and hint at hypocrisy.

AJ translator: "You did not have the position I wished to attack, so I assigned it to you. I had every right to do so. I then attacked the position I assigned to you."

 

[mercury14]

You did not pave an actual "position." If you had taken one, you would have had to defend it; we noted that. We then showed, by way of Obama and AP that shutting down coal plants was not just a desired result, but a reality. Instead of trying to refute that, you lash out at the other posters accusing them of all sorts of logical fallacy and hint at hypocrisy.

You mean you didn't like the position I took so you ignored it and assigned me one that I don't believe in, and attacked me for it. You constantly do this bro. And then when you get called on your Straw Man bullshit you throw your straw-covered hands up in the air and swear you're innocent. And here you are not only making your own fallacious argument, but encouraging and condoning other right-wing posters to abuse logic in the same way.

He did not engage, as far as I can tell in, the logical fallacy of straw man with you

Yes he did here.

In Merc's fantasy world, government regulations cost nothing to comply with because they are virtuous, and good people willingly choose to sacrifice for the greater good.

And here.

Same with taxes - raise rates, and people will simply pay more out of the goodness of their hearts.

And here.

Profits are merely excess funds you weren't going to use anyway. Like the trash you leave on the curb every week.

Your logic is terrible.

 

[RightField]

Very first sentence:



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/techno...one+pipeline/6340705/story.html#ixzz1qT3orM9Q



http://www.windsorstar.com/business/Obama+fast+track+revamped+Keystone+pipeline/6340705/story.html

That's the information that the oil expert was contesting. So far we're only at "He said, She said". How about providing an authoritative source?

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's the information that the oil expert was contesting. So far we're only at "He said, She said". How about providing an authoritative source?

So when YOU post something by a former AEI political hack, that's an "authorative source"?

DERP!

 

[RightField]

So when YOU post something by a former AEI political hack, that's an "authorative source"?

DERP!

He seems to have a better record of truth telling than the person who he's critisizing, but that's besides the fact.

Nevertheless, I'm open to being swayed on this one. Do you have proof that the President actually has authority in this case and is taking action?

 

[mercury14]

That's the information that the oil expert was contesting. So far we're only at "He said, She said". How about providing an authoritative source?

I just gave you two respected newspapers as sources and somehow your absurd AEI blogger canceled them out?

Are you serious???

Here it is on whitehouse.gov as well: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/22/expanding-our-oil-and-gas-pipeline-infrastructure

 

[RightField]

I just gave you two respected newspapers as sources and somehow your absurd AEI blogger canceled them out?

Are you serious???

The first article said that all the studies and permits were already in place which supports the quote and critisizm from the guy I referenced. Neither mentioned an analysis or proof, only repeated what the President and his spokesman said - after mentioning that the studies and permits were already in place. So, can you offer me some authoritative proof that this isn't just political grandstanding?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, so very clever.


Switching to natural gas, but drilling won't solve anything.





What to watch for now is actually not the advocation of new power plants but a war on natural gas; it's based on CARBON (CH4).

I said that the next war would be on Natural Gas, well, here's an opening salvo:

Bad stuff always happens on Friday the 13th. So it was on Friday that BrightSource Energy, the large solar energy company that has already received $868 million of a $1.6-billion loan guarantee, canceled its IPO application. And that same day, President Obama appointed Heather Zichal to head a new high-level task force to coordinate regulation of hydraulic fracking. The two events, both highly inauspicious, were not unrelated.

The connection is simple and obvious: in order to prop up failing solar companies, Obama needs to force natural gas prices higher.

Solar energy companies like BrightSource can't seem to compete without government subsidies, loan guarantees, and mandates. Left to their own devices, without a trillion dollars in direct and indirect subsidies, state mandates requiring the purchase of green energy at whatever price, and the support of environmentally active nonprofits, companies like BrightSource might not have gotten off the ground in the first place. One has to assume that the withdrawal of Friday's IPO occurred because private investors were skeptical of the ability of BrightSource to produce a profit. To date, the company has generated only large losses of $71.6 million in 2010 and $111 million in 2011. That might have something to do with the market's skeptical outlook, even though at least one major investor claims that the failed IPO will not affect the company's work on the Ivanpath solar-thermal plant, one of its major projects.

It was not just Friday the 13th for BrightSource -- other solar companies had a rough day in the markets as well. First Solar, whose stock price has fallen over 90% off its peak, fell another 5.4% Friday. Others solar firms dropped as well, with the global market index of solar companies having fallen 74% in the past two years. It would appear that without much larger subsidies and mandates, green energy is going the way of the dodo. Obama would love to be able to write another $100-billion check to green energy, but in the post-Solyndra era, he is unable to do so. That's where regulating fossil fuels out of business comes in.

Administration officials have known since last Wednesday that BrightSource planned to withdraw its IPO. That might not be the reason for Obama's creation of the fracking task force, but it might have something to do with the timing of his announcement. It is always a bit embarrassing, or it should be, when a company to which one has committed $1.6 billion faces a setback in the markets. It is all too reminiscent of Solyndra, in which Obama's $528-million politically motivated "investment" went belly-up and taxpayers were left with the tab. Obama needed a distraction from the bad news of BrightSource's IPO withdrawal. So why not announce the creation of a federal task force to coordinate regulating of fracking that same day?

More regulation of fracking is sure to shore up Obama's election-year backing by environmental groups. It will help to boost campaign contributions. It may reignite a bit of enthusiasm from younger voters. But it will do a great deal of harm to the American people.

So what? When is the last time Obama expressed concern for the American people? Those are the folks he considers the bigoted ones "clinging to their guns and religion." Those are the ones who caused his wife to never be proud of America until they elected her husband president. Who cares if an unemployment rate above 8% becomes the "new normal"? Who cares if they have to pay more for heating and electricity?

Those will surely be the effects of a nationwide tightening of regulation on fracking. At the same time, by forcing natural gas prices higher, the president's policies are designed to make solar and wind more affordable. Solar and wind cannot compete with natural gas selling at below $2 per mBtu, as it now is. It cannot even compete with gas selling at $4. The only way to stop natural gas from driving solar and wind out of the marketplace -- as is now happening -- is to stop American energy companies from producing cheap gas. Maybe then the American public won't mind paying more for electricity and home heating. Or maybe not.

In any case, Obama thinks that if he can drive natural gas prices higher, the public will agree to pay higher prices for green energy. The creation of a national fracking task force appears to have only one purpose: to drive up the price of fossil fuels. That, of course, is the same motive behind Obama's veto of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have brought plentiful supplies of Canadian oil to U.S. refineries. Now, all that oil is headed for China (the same country that appears to be doubling its strategic petroleum reserves just as Obama talks of gutting our own).

Obama's plan all along has been to drive up fossil fuel prices in the U.S., subsidize wind and solar with extraordinarily large subsidies and mandates, and collect his own election-year bounty from well-funded environmental groups and green energy investors. The only ones who'll be hurt are those boobs all over America who are still toting their guns and clinging to their religion. But Obama has nothing but contempt for ordinary citizens who will be paying higher energy prices.

And he has nothing but contempt for the free market. The creation of a fracking council headed by an environmental activist is one more example of this contempt. Instead of allowing markets to work -- and they are working very well, with the production of natural gas increasing by 40% and prices for consumers near all-time lows -- the president believes that a single task force, composed of environmental activists and operating under his direct control, should have the power to regulate oil and gas drilling throughout the U.S.

The creation of a task force to regulate fracking should be seen for what it is: an unprecedented power-grab at the expense of the nation's states, which have always enjoyed the prerogative of regulating drilling within their borders.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/brightsource_and_the_fracking_task_force.html#ixzz1sCeuQ6OK