Washington Post and other lib media outlets attacking energy independence:

Link (http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=18662&url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102549.html)

Clearly, T. Boone Pickens has rattled the environmentalists and the rest of the left. How can anyone from evil Big Oil actually WANT to produce clean / renewable domestic energy? The answer is in the word domestic.

Electricity is an energy source that isn't easily or cheaply exportable, so it is both created and consumed locally. As such, world demand for electricity has no impact on our price for electricity at home - it is purely cost based pricing, not demand based.

Inexplicably, liberals are doing everything they can now to thwart the growth of wind and solar energy, by withholding the tax incentives that have been in place for years, but it is too late, as GE Finance and other institutions are in need of the liquidity that such installations provide.

Additionally, producing more of our own oil will keep more of our money here in this country.

Huh?

Jason,

Did you read this whole article? This is an EVWorld reprint of Andy Grove's Washington Post piece link by Tom that you commented on. Really, the whole point of this article is exactly what you are saying. Actually, I would have taken your words as a paraphrase if they weren't in the context of an anti-liberal rant. I don't know Andy Grove's politics, but I'm assuming you see him as a liberal. Below is an exact quote from the article:

"Electricity can be transported only over land. Consequently, it will stay in (or stick to) the continent where it is produced. Equally important is that electricity can be produced using multiple sources of energy. Petroleum, yes -- but also coal, which is abundant in the United States; wind; hydroelectric; nuclear; and solar energy. If one source suffers a shortage, we can produce electricity from another. Electricity will give us the greatest degree of energy resilience."

I supposed you read the first sentence and thought "uggghh, liberal crap...". His argument against the term "energy independence" is becuase he sees it as misleading and makes his case for "energy resilience". Seems like a waste of effort to me. It's really just semantics and I think both terms describe the same goal equally well.

No, I did read it, but, mark my words, this is just the first step in them trying to redirect current efforts towards some other goal using some other set of semantics. It may sound the same now, but it will shift, if libs ever control both the Congress and the Presidency.

To attack even the words Energy Independence means they are going to try to prevent drilling of oil and natural gas within our own borders. Both those resources are going to be necessary in the near and long terms, especially to help our trade deficit.

To attack even the words Energy Independence means they are going to try to prevent drilling of oil and natural gas within our own borders. Both those resources are going to be necessary in the near and long terms, especially to help our trade deficit.


The republican's plan of drilling has but a pimple of energy usefulness. Not to mention the time-frames needed. However, I see the political usefulness far outweighing any real energy usefulness. Thus, I say drill like crazy. Even if it's only exploratory and mapping efforts. At least we will know what is out there and how much. Who can argue with that logic? Most importantly it will stop the wasteful bickering. If we are drilling, exploring, planning then we can talk about the real solutions and what we are going to do. Why is the news filled with talk about drilling and environmental talk and the partisan battles those topics instigate? Because it makes for good news. You don't hear about politicians talking about assembling a team to make a national energy plan because that's boring and everyone can agree that's a good idea. Talking about our real situation is also scary and people don't like that kind of talk.

Unfortunately, even if we agree to start drilling and making nuke plants the conversation will probably switch over to the trustworthiness of the candidates’ wives and other such nonsense. To me it's like watching the activities of ants as the exterminator pulls up in the driveway. "Wow, look at how they are fighting over that piece of food.", I think to myself. "Good morning Texas!", says the exterminator. "Time to get to work."

That's why it is fortunate for us that the Bakkan Oil Fields are immediately available for exploration. There are plenty of folks hitting it rich up in South Dakota, which must bother Dems, who think they should be rich and famous due to their good intentions alone.

That's why it is fortunate for us that the Bakkan Oil Fields are immediately available for exploration. There are plenty of folks hitting it rich up in South Dakota, which must bother Dems, who think they should be rich and famous due to their good intentions alone.



Yeah, while they are at it get some serious projects going there to. I'm also sick of hearing about the Bakkan resources. So what if it takes over 4 times the amount of energy and water to extract the oil. Screw the environment disaster. If it's stops the bickering it's worth it. We are at the point where we are going to be in deep trouble. Anything and everything. However, all I'm asking is that an equal amount of money and funding go to the renewable options. That's fair. Even Rush Limbaugh can agree with that. Once these projects are underway it will put to rest many issues. First, people will realize it will not drop the price of oil. Second it will bring the full time-scale of the problem to light. No short term solutions exist!

Right now Americans are pulling back their energy use. The low hanging fruit is easy. Don't go on trips, don't eat out as much, turn down the AC, take the smaller car out as much as possible, etc. As this gets more difficult the demand destruction will slow tremendously. There was a story yesterday about a guy giving up his health insurance to put gas in the tank. That's what I'm talking about. That's a serious situation with deeper ramifications. Next comes the decision to sell the house and move closer to work. When they find out that the can't get enough to cover the mortgage you get more foreclosures. Personal bankruptcies are next. Then what? The undeveloped world will still be wanting oil. There are a lot more of them then there are of us.

A quick calculation I made shows that gasoline is about 40 times cheaper than food in terms of the amount of energy available to perform human work. In the third world where there is no existing oil infrastructure an oil powered engine can still do a heck of a lot more work than a human can for the same cost. Even if oil prices rise many more times! That's the killer. The industrialized nations cannot tolerate that much of an increase without serious infrastructure collapse. Our infrastructure is the most vulnerable on earth! We are the least prepared for expensive energy. Let's get a plan going. I know, I know. I might as well be writing to myself. I realize that a lot more pain is needed for change to happen.

Texas,

Actually, while your reasoning may be based in flawed intentions, the path you suggest is correct. Work all paths at once, so that the truth comes out, and everyone can see it and stop bickering. That is EXACTLY the approach that I took in my jobs. The result is that each path resulted in a solution that worked based in vastly different niches, so they all sold well in their respective markets. The same will happen in the vastly expansive energy market, serving residential, commercial and military needs for transportation, production, preserving/preparing food, climate control, etc.