Clipmarks | merrie's ENERGY collection

Hydroelectric Power

Thu, 15 May 2008 18:10:10 GMT

clipped by: willhelm
clipper's remarks: The dirty little secret environmentalists do not want you to know.

Hydro power must be one of the oldest methods of producing power. No doubt, Jack the Caveman stuck some sturdy leaves on a pole and put it in a moving stream. The water would spin the pole that crushed grain to make their delicious, low-fat prehistoric bran muffins. People have used moving water to help them in their work throughout history, and modern people make great use of moving water to produce electricity.

Advantages to hydroelectric power:
Fuel is not burned so there is minimal pollution
Water to run the power plant is provided free by nature
It's renewable - rainfall renews the water in the reservoir, so the fuel is almost always there

Transport of Ethanol

Fri, 16 May 2008 20:41:29 GMT

clipped by: Miriam Marcus
clipper's remarks: The question remains: how do we get the ethanol from middle America to the coasts where most energy consumers are?

Clip Source: www.forbes.com

The vast majority of ethanol is produced in five states--Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota and South Dakota--all roughly 1,500 miles away from the approximately 80% of the population who live on the coasts. Ethanol will live or die with its ability to bridge that gap.

Ethanol producers are likely to have particular problems because of the hazardous material certifications required to haul the loads. Add to this the cost of diesel fuel, the extra carbon emissions and the further strain the trucks would place on the nation's highways and the outlook for clean, supposedly green ethanol looks dimmer and dimmer. What's the solution? Good question.

Who Will Pay For The Politicians Promises?

Wed, 14 May 2008 09:48:30 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: Because of onerous regulations, it has been 30-plus years since a new refinery has been built.

Similar regulations also explain why the U.S. nuclear energy production is a fraction of what it might be.

Congress' solution to our energy supply problems is not to relax supply restrictions, but to enact the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that mandates that oil companies increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline.

Anyone with an ounce of brains would have realized that diverting crops from food to fuel use would raise the prices of a host of corn-related foods, such as corn-fed meat and dairy products. Wheat and soybeans prices have also risen as a result of fewer acres being planted in favor of corn.

Congress' proposed "solutions" to the energy and food mess it has created include a windfall profits tax on oil companies, food stamps, etc. These measures will not solve the problem, but will create new problems.

Clip Source: www.ibdeditorials.com

Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place.

The Community Reinvestment Act encouraged banks and thrifts to make so-called "no doc" and "liar" loans to customers who had no realistic ability to pay them back. A decade of monetary expansion by the Federal Reserve Bank, contributing to the housing bubble, encouraged lending institutions to take risks they otherwise would not have taken.

Government actions created the subprime crisis, and now government-proposed "solutions," such as foreclosure holidays, bailouts and further regulation of financial institutions, to the problems they created will create more problems.

Congress, doing the bidding of environmental extremists, created our energy supply problem.

The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and eastern Gulf of Mexico offshore areas have enormous reserves of oil and natural gas. These energy sources of oil have also been placed off-limits by Congress.

Tags: congress, sub-prime crisis, bailouts, regulation, financial institutions, energy, food costs

Going After OPEC

Wed, 14 May 2008 06:52:10 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: The real energy problem, in other words, isn't Big Oil; it's Big Government.

As with so many other things, President Reagan got it right when, not even a week after taking office in 1981, he signed Executive Order 12287 decontrolling the price of oil and gas. He then ordered his secretary of energy to focus on encouraging U.S. companies to find and produce more.

It worked like a charm, bringing oil prices down sharply and OPEC to its knees. By 1986, after a 74% drop in the price of oil, some even doubted OPEC could survive.

Such would-be monopolies look invincible when demand rises and prices follow. But when supply increases, prices fall and members start cheating, they look pathetic. This pretty much describes the history of OPEC.

Reagan's strategy of energy decontrol would work again today. But this time it's supplies, not prices, that need to be untethered.

Clip Source: www.ibdeditorials.com

If Hillary is really serious about breaking OPEC, she should push something very un-Hillary-like: boosting energy supply by unleashing the very oil companies she now vilifies. They're America's secret weapon against the cartel.

That will hurt OPEC by breaking the back of higher oil prices through added supply. Flooding the market with cheaper oil is the only way to make OPEC squeal — not senseless lawsuits and WTO actions that would take years, if not decades, to get through our legal system.

As we've noted repeatedly, U.S. oil reserves offshore, in Alaska and locked up on federal lands in the Midwest are a potential bonanza. If President Bill Clinton in 1995 had approved drilling in Alaska's ANWR, instead of vetoing it, we'd have millions of barrels more of oil today. And, by the way, Hillary still opposes this.

Around the world, governments control about 80% of all energy reserves — that includes the U.S. And 12 of the 15 largest oil companies are government-owned.

Tags: opec, supply, market, offshore, alaska, federal lands

FREE EMAIL S2284 THE SENATE VOTE FOR DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION

Tue, 13 May 2008 01:49:38 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: What the McConnell amendment would do:
•Produce up to 24 billion barrels of oil when fully enacted—enough oil to keep America running for 5 years with no foreign imports.
•Allow petitions for leasing activities on the Outer Continental Shelf—an area with 14 billion barrels of known recoverable oil.
•As no new refineries have been built in the U.S. in 30 years, give the EPA authority to expedite permits for refineries
•Establish a competitive oil and gas leasing program for ANWR
•Repeal the $4000 fee for new permit applications to drill.
•Repeal the 2007 provision that reduces mineral leasing revenue payments to the states.
•Repeal the moratorium on funds to encourage the commercial leasing of oil shale.

Isn’t it time Congress came to its senses and voted for U.S. domestic energy production?

Clip Source: capwiz.com

TELL THE SENATE TO STOP BLOCKING DOMESTIC ENERGY PRODUCTION
VOTE FOR THE MCCONNELL AMENDMENT AND AMERICA’S ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

Dear Friend of ACU,

When President Bill Clinton vetoed a bill that would have started domestic oil production in a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), he said it was a waste of time because it would have no effect on gas prices for ten years. That was 13 years ago, in 1995 when oil was $19 a barrel. Every year since, Liberals in Congress have blocked efforts to increase domestic oil and gas production, not only in ANWR but throughout the country and offshore. On Tuesday, the Senate will have the opportunity to change this policy by voting for the McConnell amendment to S2284 the Flood Insurance Bill.

TELL CONGRESS YOU ARE SICK AND TIRED OF OUR EVER-INCREASING DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL! CONTACT THE SENATORS FROM YOUR STATE TO SAY VOTE “YES” ON THE MCCONNELL AMENDMENT!

For all you do to advance conservative free-market principles

Tags: domestic energy production, mcconnell amendment, energy independence, american conservative union

Oil Prices Require More Than Congressional Accusations

Sat, 10 May 2008 06:03:57 GMT

clipped by: merrie
clipper's remarks: He was correct to remind Americans that if we want to lower the cost of energy we must be willing to use our own resources, whether they are natural or those we can build, rather than rely upon others to provide for our needs. After all, isn’t self-reliance part of the American spirit. We should not recontributely on foreign governments, many of which are volatile, to supply our energy needs, nor should our large farmers rely on Federal Government handouts to prop up their financially lucrative businesses.

President Bush was correct to note that Congressional support for farm subsidies will do little other than contribute to the rising prices of food. He was correct to remind Americans that if we want to lower the cost of energy we must be willing to use our own resources, whether they are natural or those we can build, rather than rely upon others to provide for our needs.

Clip Source: www.aim.org

Another factor contributing to the high cost of energy is that America’s refining capacity has been stagnant for 30 years, the last time a new refinery was built. Like ANWR exploration, Congress repeatedly has blocked efforts to build more refineries and expand capacity. It has done the same with the use of nuclear energy. Congress also is “considering bills to raise taxes on domestic energy production, impose new and costly mandates on producers, and demand dramatic emissions cuts that would shut down coal plants, and increase reliance on expensive natural gas,” as President Bush stated.

Finally, there is no end in sight for Federal subsidies to multi-millionaire farmers. These subsidies, as this column has noted before, cost American taxpayers millions of dollars a year, are wasteful, and generally hinder the development of more productive farmland and the planting of market-driven crops. Yet Congress shows no inclination to cut subsidies from the current Farm Bill.

Tags: energy, domestic production, food costs inflation, increased gas prices, federal subsidies