EIN News says, "3 Environmental Groups Sue BP Over Gulf Oil Spill. The suit alleges that the Deepwater Horizon rig disaster caused an oil spill that harmed and killed both endangered and threatened species, which may continue to feel the effects long after the cleanup. (latimes.com)".
Government should absolutely stay out of this one. Private enterprise takes a risk of profit/loss in their operations, and contending with such suits is part of the cost of doing business. If they lose these types of cases, two things happen. Company profits are reduced and much of the loss is also passed along to the consumers. However, the consumers are made up of juries, which are representative of the consuming public and whose decisions make up that aspect of the financial picture. This is market forces at work and government should have no part in it.
Covers energy sources, economis of energy, fossil fuels, solar and wind, government and private programs
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Oil Drilling Moratorium and Uncertainty
e-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:
I just read your recent newsletter.
You brought up a good point on the termination of the moratorium for oil and gas drilling in the Gulf, I guess I'm kind of gullible. I thought that the Administration's removal of the restrictive drilling moratorium would quickly open up more drilling. You have pointed out that lifting the moratorium is merely a word game. Nothing is accomplished, because the Administration has now loaded the system with other drilling restrictions, including permit limitations. "Sure you can drill for oil but you need a permit, which I won't give you."
Again I say, what are you doing about it?
Your second point is that the economy is slowed by uncertainty. I said before that there is no uncertainty. The Administration has clearly demonstrated their antibusiness approach through higher taxes, global redistribution of wealth, nonenforcement of immigration laws to obtain Democratic/socialistic votes through giveaway programs, and many others. The correction of this is to create certainty in the other direction, and your action must be to do something to make it happen.
I did not bother to answer your question of the week concerning the recent order of a federal judge to end enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the U.S. military. The reason I did not is because this sort of trivia in the face of other tremendous economic and national issues only distracts from working on the much more important issues.
I just read your recent newsletter.
You brought up a good point on the termination of the moratorium for oil and gas drilling in the Gulf, I guess I'm kind of gullible. I thought that the Administration's removal of the restrictive drilling moratorium would quickly open up more drilling. You have pointed out that lifting the moratorium is merely a word game. Nothing is accomplished, because the Administration has now loaded the system with other drilling restrictions, including permit limitations. "Sure you can drill for oil but you need a permit, which I won't give you."
Again I say, what are you doing about it?
Your second point is that the economy is slowed by uncertainty. I said before that there is no uncertainty. The Administration has clearly demonstrated their antibusiness approach through higher taxes, global redistribution of wealth, nonenforcement of immigration laws to obtain Democratic/socialistic votes through giveaway programs, and many others. The correction of this is to create certainty in the other direction, and your action must be to do something to make it happen.
I did not bother to answer your question of the week concerning the recent order of a federal judge to end enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the U.S. military. The reason I did not is because this sort of trivia in the face of other tremendous economic and national issues only distracts from working on the much more important issues.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Trojan Horse on DOE's Battery Technology Program?
EIN News says, "U.S. Department of Energy Sponsored Portal Will Bring New Advanced Energy Storage Technology to U.S."
This is a good move on the part of the DOE. It is basically promoting licensing opportunities for research and development technology on batteries through the Internet.
We must also keep in mind that this program essentially promotes the development of electrically powered automotive vehicles, which has some controversial aspects. The obvious advantage of an electrical vehicle is that it reduces the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuels made from crude oil. This reduction will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but let us also remember that much of our dependence on foreign oil is because the US Government has imposed various restrictions on development of our own national resources. We should not let this new DOE program take away our continued efforts to force government to open more opportunities for national oil and gas drilling.
In addition, the increased use of electrically powered automotive vehicles will require significant increases in electricity production and distribution. Most of our electricity production now comes from coal-burning generating plants, which government now abhors, because of the simultaneous emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. I have several times reported that carbon dioxide emissions from any sources, whether they be coal-fired electricity generating plants or gasoline/diesel burning automotive vehicles, has no significant effect on global warming. However, the Obama administration continues to push for carbon dioxide control through use of Cap & Trade, which is really the Administration's mechanism for increasing US taxes and redistributing wealth on a global basis.
However, carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will not be significantly changed, whether the basic energy sources are burning coal or burning products from crude oil. We still must be wary of the Obama Administration's overall program on Cap & Trade.
Remember that Communists/Socialists/New-Form Democrats never give up on their ideologies and will continue to force their self-serving form of government, with its aspects detrimental to the American public.
This is a good move on the part of the DOE. It is basically promoting licensing opportunities for research and development technology on batteries through the Internet.
We must also keep in mind that this program essentially promotes the development of electrically powered automotive vehicles, which has some controversial aspects. The obvious advantage of an electrical vehicle is that it reduces the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuels made from crude oil. This reduction will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but let us also remember that much of our dependence on foreign oil is because the US Government has imposed various restrictions on development of our own national resources. We should not let this new DOE program take away our continued efforts to force government to open more opportunities for national oil and gas drilling.
In addition, the increased use of electrically powered automotive vehicles will require significant increases in electricity production and distribution. Most of our electricity production now comes from coal-burning generating plants, which government now abhors, because of the simultaneous emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. I have several times reported that carbon dioxide emissions from any sources, whether they be coal-fired electricity generating plants or gasoline/diesel burning automotive vehicles, has no significant effect on global warming. However, the Obama administration continues to push for carbon dioxide control through use of Cap & Trade, which is really the Administration's mechanism for increasing US taxes and redistributing wealth on a global basis.
However, carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere will not be significantly changed, whether the basic energy sources are burning coal or burning products from crude oil. We still must be wary of the Obama Administration's overall program on Cap & Trade.
Remember that Communists/Socialists/New-Form Democrats never give up on their ideologies and will continue to force their self-serving form of government, with its aspects detrimental to the American public.
Friday, October 15, 2010
China Versuis the US on Alternate Energy
Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) is the magazine of the American Chemical Society (ACS). The ACS is a professional organization and almost all people who call themselves chemists belong to the ACS. C&EN publishes weekly and Rudy Baum is the Editor-in-Chief. He generally includes an editorial by himself in each weekly issue. He also commands the political tone under which each reporter writes his story. Having read his editorials for many years, I tentatively concluded that Rudy is a Commie. His latest editorial in the 10/4/10 Issue has caused me to reconsider partially his political leanings.
The 10/4/10 Issue contains an article entitled, "Chemistry Energizes China ", written by Jean-Françoise Tremblay. The Table of Contents of the Issue changed the name to "Alternative Energy in China". Rudy devoted his complete editorial to that article and entitled his editorial "China Ascendant". Notice the three different titles involving the same subject. Commies usually use word games for political innuendo.
In spite of my negativity, the statement by Rudy, which caused me partially to change my mind, is in his last paragraph. He said, "China's intense focus on developing alternative energy sources presents excellent business opportunities for global chemical firms, but it is profoundly depressing to this US citizen". He apparently still has the welfare of the US at heart, but he still may feel the US would be better off under Communism.
However, let's look at some of the data in Jean-Françoise's article. Jean includes a data table entitled, "Upstart". From that table, the bad news for the US is that in the next 28 years China will increase its total electricity generation by 1687%, the World by 58%, and the US by 22%. This essentially confirms previous claims that the US is declining as a world power of economic significance. It has previously been recognized that a nation's standard of living for its inhabitants is directly related to its per capita usage of non-human energy.
In the year 2035, China's production of electricity from wind and solar will be 0.05% of its total energy production. The US will have the same figure. Notice the similarity of the Chinese and US figures and notice also the very low order of magnitude. In the year 2035, electricity generation from combined wind and solar will be insignificant. This is in direct contrast to Jean's and Rudy's writings which accent the great forward thinking of the Chinese with respect to alternate energy. The facts show that the Chinese understand that coal-fired power plants are significantly more efficient in energy generation than wind turbines or solar panels.
What is then the basis for Jean's and Rudy's interpretation? It is likely true that the Chinese are engaging in high volume manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, and that in so doing, they need to import or obtain from local production the products of worldwide chemical companies, until such time as they can produce their own. However, I believe from the above data that the Chinese have little intention of using significant numbers of wind turbines and solar panels themselves. China concentrates on exports. That is the basis for their total grand economic growth in the last several years, while the US has taken a second rate position by becoming a purchaser, rather than an exporter.
A fundamental aspect of how the situation has developed is primarily government attitude. The Chinese government encourages local manufacture for export. The US government does the reverse by applying high taxes and various labor and environmental restrictions to manufacturing companies.
The 10/4/10 Issue contains an article entitled, "Chemistry Energizes China ", written by Jean-Françoise Tremblay. The Table of Contents of the Issue changed the name to "Alternative Energy in China". Rudy devoted his complete editorial to that article and entitled his editorial "China Ascendant". Notice the three different titles involving the same subject. Commies usually use word games for political innuendo.
In spite of my negativity, the statement by Rudy, which caused me partially to change my mind, is in his last paragraph. He said, "China's intense focus on developing alternative energy sources presents excellent business opportunities for global chemical firms, but it is profoundly depressing to this US citizen". He apparently still has the welfare of the US at heart, but he still may feel the US would be better off under Communism.
However, let's look at some of the data in Jean-Françoise's article. Jean includes a data table entitled, "Upstart". From that table, the bad news for the US is that in the next 28 years China will increase its total electricity generation by 1687%, the World by 58%, and the US by 22%. This essentially confirms previous claims that the US is declining as a world power of economic significance. It has previously been recognized that a nation's standard of living for its inhabitants is directly related to its per capita usage of non-human energy.
In the year 2035, China's production of electricity from wind and solar will be 0.05% of its total energy production. The US will have the same figure. Notice the similarity of the Chinese and US figures and notice also the very low order of magnitude. In the year 2035, electricity generation from combined wind and solar will be insignificant. This is in direct contrast to Jean's and Rudy's writings which accent the great forward thinking of the Chinese with respect to alternate energy. The facts show that the Chinese understand that coal-fired power plants are significantly more efficient in energy generation than wind turbines or solar panels.
What is then the basis for Jean's and Rudy's interpretation? It is likely true that the Chinese are engaging in high volume manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, and that in so doing, they need to import or obtain from local production the products of worldwide chemical companies, until such time as they can produce their own. However, I believe from the above data that the Chinese have little intention of using significant numbers of wind turbines and solar panels themselves. China concentrates on exports. That is the basis for their total grand economic growth in the last several years, while the US has taken a second rate position by becoming a purchaser, rather than an exporter.
A fundamental aspect of how the situation has developed is primarily government attitude. The Chinese government encourages local manufacture for export. The US government does the reverse by applying high taxes and various labor and environmental restrictions to manufacturing companies.