Economic Jihad. As I have said many times, it should have been job one on September 12, 2001, or even before that, to establish a Manhattan Project setting the best minds of this generation on the search for affordable, reliable and plentiful alternative energy sources. "Iran says $100 a barrel is appropriate price for oil," from AFP, January 16 (thanks to Sr. Soph):
Iran's oil minister said on Sunday that $100 for a barrel of crude was appropriate and there was no need to hold an emergency OPEC meeting to discuss the price."The price of $100 for oil per barrel is real ... OPEC does not need to hold an emergency meeting over the price issue," Massoud Mirkazemi told a news conference.
Brent crude prices rallied this week to around $98 a barrel while US oil futures were at about $91, well above the $70-$80 range that OPEC's top exporter Saudi Arabia says is comfortable for both producers and consumers.
One delegate from a Gulf OPEC member state said on Thursday OPEC could hold an emergency meeting if oil prices "exceed $100 and stay there"....
"None of the OPEC members find $100 concerning," Mirkazemi said, adding that some members of the producers' group would still not see any need for an emergency meeting if the price rose to $110 or $120.
Iran holds the rotating OPEC presidency. The next scheduled OPEC meeting is on June 2....
Analysts are divided between those who see fundamental strength as the world economy recovers, driving up fuel consumption, and those who focus on differences between today's relatively well-supplied market and that of 2008, when oil prices raced to an all-time high of nearly $150 a barrel.
As I have said many times, it should have been job one on September 12, 2001, or even before that, to establish a Manhattan Project setting the best minds of this generation on the search for affordable, reliable and plentiful alternative energy sources.
We've had that all along: oil. Remember that it was the Geezers who have made America's oil largely unavailable to itself. Deepwater Horizon? The reason they were drilling so deep was that offshore rigs in shallow water have largely been outlawed for decades now. Same with the oil sands. Many of our best minds are sitting in Houston right now... unemployed. Too bad, cuz we have a wonderful infrastructure to deliver fuel to cars and trucks that get cleaner every year.
It's called California Dremaing when you put the "e" in upper case in the acronym GSEARS = Globo-Socialist Environmentalist Atheist Racist Sexist (pronounced Geezers).
The gubmint has been predicting that oil will be depleted since the late 1800s, and every time those predictions proved as wildly inaccurate as our reportage on Islam. It's a form of Fictive Reality. We use the term "proven reserves" because without exploration, nobody knows how much of the stuff there is. But with the Geezers running the show, as they have been for nearly 50 yrs now, we've systematically denied ourselves a proven supply with proven infrastructure.
The only thing we know for sure is that "global warming" is a scientific fraud serving as the basis for an unconstitutional political power shift to globalism.
Since Iran does not refine its own gasoline and downstream products, let's raise the prices on them 5X what they are now. I agree about reducing dependence on foreign crude, but we should be drilling in the Gulf and increasing our own refining capacity, something which the libs refuse to do!
Beat them at their own game...
I have been experimenting with hydrogen fuel cells for my auto, for some time now...I actually do get better mileage, depending on the cell, and the engine runs smoother and quieter...Youtube has lots of video's on how to build, or you can buy complete units on line...I did discover that the smog guy won't smog (CAL) unless I take the unit out, but that's no problem...I just reinstall after inspection...Takes five minutes...
OPEC should not be exempted from the application of GATT Art. XI.
It is politics that allows the price to remain high, not economics. Big oil has no loyalty other than to mazimize the extraction of "economic rent," any which way they can.
Just saerch on: OPEC gatt
I'm glad I don't watch that much TV these days. I'd hate to clean up the mess after puking my guts out upon hearing a MSM pundit wonder "why can't our oil-rich 'allies', such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, agree to sell us oil at a lower price, despite OPEC's decisions? After all, they're our 'allies'."
Btw, the Kingdom of the Two Mosques is said by a growing consensus of esteemed scientific experts, and by recent production patterns in Arabia, that the House of Saud's oil future is fast waning as its giant pools are emptying and requiring new and more expensive extractiion measures to keep the PetroDollars flowing.
Along with few smaller pools, Arabia has the easiest-to-tap oil ever seen. It's not that deep to get at, and moves through high security pipelines over the barren flat desert there, and only needs to travel a short distance to the Persian Gulf, where global supertankers float in anticipation.
Iran and Iraq have a sustainable oil futures, especially Persia. But the King and his 2,200 princes are probably in trouble.
*** 33:21 ***
This fine country, Saudi Arabia, is led by a King who let a fatwa be issued right under his nose to authorize the acquisition and detonation of a nuclear device to destroy a major Western city.
Maybe when Prez Barack Hussein bowed to the Custodian himself, the great King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, Hussein whispered "Please don't do D.C. or Chicago, your Highness, sir."
Another fine country, Persia, heard its leader speaking glowingly about the potential of buying a freighter, and tranporting the ship off the shore of America. From there they could use a old technology missile platform to detonate a electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) bomb over the eastern seaboard, thereby knocking out the power grid and all electronic devices, including most auto engines.
Prez Mock-Moood pointed out that this would be tremendously disruptive, would trigger an economic depression, and would present America with a staggering cost to repeair the damaged systems, their chips, their wiring, their controls, the works.
*** 33:21 ***
... agrowing consensus of esteemed scientific experts...
If the experts are always wrong on America's oil future running dry, why should we believe them on depletion of Arabia?
Cuz field depletions have been accurately predicted, observed, and measured, for over 100 yrs now.
It doesn't take a Manhattan Project. All it takes it the sensible exploitation of existing resources, and the sensible development of existing technology.
First, nuclear. France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, using American reactor designs, and exports electricity to every one of its EU neighbors. America could have done the same, but we allowed the "environmentalists" to use litigation to harass all nuclear projects to death.
Second, use electricity to replace oil wherever possible. Every one of our metropolitan areas would benefit from expanded electric-powered mass transit: subways, commuter rail, LRT, etc. Virtually every European country has greatly expanded its urban rapid transit systems since the "oil shocks" of the '70's. The same applies to inter-city transport: up to distances of 500 miles or so, high-speed electrified rail is the way to go. When the electricity is provided by nuclear powerm there's no air pollution, no water pollution, and no use of oil.
Third, exploit our existing oil resources: the Bakken formation in ND, the eastern part of the Gulf, off-shore California, and the Arctic, including ANWR.
Fourth, the same for our natural-gas resources, like the Marcellus shale in NY and PA. Many fleet vehicles, like taxis, buses, street department trucks, garbage trucks, etc. could be powered by natural gas.
Fifth, encourage our NFTA partner, Canada, to further development of its oil resources. Recent explorations in Saskatchewan show that province has tar sands potential as great as Alberta, but the provincial authorities seem determined to prevent the development of these.
Sixth, enact legislation putting an end to the death by litigational harassment tactics used by "environmentalists" to stop any improvement of our energy situation. At one time the American nuclear power industry was the world leader: the French used an American design for their first series of reactors, and have since improved on it. The Chinese likewise. But we allowed our own industry to be destroyed. Last year, I read of a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska to central Canada finally being given approval for construction, having met all the environmentalists' objections. That was 20 years after the pipeline was first proposed; TWENTY YEARS!, and construction was just now starting. Two years ago an oil company announced plans to spend $4 billion to enlarge and re-design its refinery in Indiana to handle Canadian crude instead of heavy Venezuelan crude, only to face one lawsuit after another, so that construction has yet to begin. Apparently it's better to subsidize Chavez's tyranny than to buy from a free country.
Seventh, forget about solar- and wind-power for anything except for special-purpose niche applications. There's no way they can contribute economically to the national grid; they only generate power about 1/3 of the time at best, (and even that 1/3 is highly variable -- the sun doesn't shine at the same times every day) so that the steam plants are still needed for the base load, and since steam plants are still required, the solar and wind plants become an unnecessary and expensive extra. These are "competitive" only with massive tax subsidies; cancel the subsidies and use the savings to reduce the deficit.
Even all of these would probably not eliminate our oil imports from OPEC and the Arab terror-sheikhs. But we could probably cut our imports from these sources in half, from the current eight million bbl/day to four million. At $100/bbl, we'd cut OPEC's income, and our deficit, by ca. $150 billion/yr.
Let's get at it.
vote for people who really want to wean away from ME oil! l say drill baby drill!
"Iran takes OPEC presidency..." -- from the headline
There's something very disturbing about that.
almost forgot:
Eighth, levy a tariff on imported (non-NAFTA) oil and gas. Begin with $5/bbl on oil and the same on the energy-equivalent unit of natural gas, and stipulate that the tariff would increase every year by $1/bbl. That would work out to 11 cents/gal. in the first year. Use the proceeds to build electrified rapid transit.
And ninth - use the CHEAPEST way to save energy - not use it in the first place?! When we have internet access, teleconferencing, is there such a need to travel around the World for business needs? Likewise, most cities have plenty of interesting places to visit nearby... is there really such a need for every person to go on a trip round the world?
Every such journey funds our Saudi and Iranian "friends", and whoever they want to fund - to the tune of at least around $200 for a Europe-US return trip. Also, it creates more demand for oil, helping to raise the price even further.
Likewise, eating more - especially Big Macs at McDonald's - uses oil (modern agriculture, with its trucks and combine harvesters, uses it a lot). As does shipping goods.
So - why not eat less, buy less from China, and travel locally? Healthier, greener, and cheaper... and less money all the way. An ideal win-win situation. Or am I missing something?
Yup.
My husband has ridden a bicycle to work all of his working life (only in wet weather does he take the train or the bus).
It keeps him fit...at 48 he has *no* heart problems, and his waistline is less than it would otherwise be.
When we moved cities, we deliberately bought a house near enough to a primary school that I did not have to drive the kids to school.
My older son rode a bike to his high school; my next child walked and caught a bus, resorting to the 'mummy taxi' only on occasion (and she lost all her puppy fat and became slim and fit, once she started the walk-and-bus commute); my third child will walk and bus to high school. Meanwhile, I and our youngest will do the 15 minute walk, to and from his primary school, each day. 15 minutes there to drop him off, 15 back, same again in the afternoon, and that's my 'bare minimum' 30 minutes' walk for fitness taken care of.
Here in Australia we have had 'walk to school' days, and 'walk to work' day.
I intend to contact a few of our church organisations and suggest an all-denominations 'walk to church Sunday' (people either walk to their parish church or, if it is too far or their fitness level is such as to prohibit walking all the way, then drive, park and walk, or ride [bus or train] and walk). I think it would be fascinating to see just how many people would appear on the streets of our towns and suburbs from about 7 am Sunday morning, and then successively throughout the day, according to what times their respective churches held services.
I see all kinds of good reasons for civic authorities to find ways of making walking, cycling, and public transport more pleasant and practical for people than driving, for short local trips and commuting (to work, to school).
For one thing: fewer cars zooming about = less air pollution, less noise, and a much more welcoming and safer physical environment (when was the last time, in large suburbs of western cities, that kids could play ball on the street in front of their homes?). Secondly: if you are walking to and from school rather than driving, there is more opportunity for social interaction with your kids and with other people who are also walking. If you spot someone you know, you can stop and chat. And everyone gets less fat and more fit.
If public transport is well run, it should not be looked down upon. Many commuters use their bus and train time to catch up with reading; and often people strike up conversations. My son, riding on the bus one day with his art book, busy sketching, was spotted by the nice young lady opposite, who asked if he could do a sketch portrait of herself! An interaction that simply could not have taken place, had he been driving to university.
And one should not forget, in our car-centric society, that many elderly folks, at a certain point in their lives, lose their ability to drive, while still being mobile and compos mentis enough to use public transport. The better and safer and more accessible and comprehensive the public transport, the easier it is for such elderly folks to continue to get about (it should be noted that anything that makes it easier for a little old lady with a walking stick to get onto the train or bus, *also* makes it easier for a disabled person of whatever age, or a young mum with a stroller and shopping bag, to do the same).
A propos solar power, which ebonystone pooh-poohed, above.
In Australia there are many places - remote cattle stations, for example, and aboriginal communities in the central and western deserts and the tropical rangelands of the north - for whom grid power will always be prohibitively expensive. In those places, solar and wind power packs - and Australian and Israeli researchers are doing amazing things to increase efficiency of same, pace ebonystone's gloomy pronouncements - are very useful....and cut out the hideously expensive business of trucking or flying in diesel fuel for generators (which are also dreadfully noisy). Solar-powered lights are perfectly practical for street, garden and household lighting. One finds solar-heated showers and solar-powered path lighting at many a camp ground in remote-area Australian national parks.
My own father, residing in a farm in an out of the way location in the mountains, miles away from the nearest part of the state power grid, uses a solar power installation on top of his machinery shed, to run a washing machine, fridge, TV, and household lights - making a huge difference to his quality of life. He uses a generator for backup only occasionally, in long periods of cloudy wet weather. The cost of his solar pack was far, far less than would have been the cost of bringing conventional power to the farm.
GreenInfidel, and Dumbledoresarmy, thanks for your comments.
I agree that conservation is also a useful help in our energy predicament. And the remark about teleconferencing and not needing so many meetings at distant locations is spot on. Just think of how much energy was squandered taking BHO and his cast of thousands to India a few months ago.
As for wind and solar, I don't think I exactly pooh-poohed them. I merely pointed that they are niche applications at best; the cattle station you mentioned is one such example of a niche application. Both wind and solar have their uses, but it's folly to rely on them for any major contribution to the national grid. Both are intermittent and unpredictable, and so both require the national grid as the standard electrical source. Thus they are unnecessary and expensive extras. As for technological improvements, well there will undoubtedly be some, but even if solar panels were to achieve 100% efficiency, which is an impossibility, there's only so much energy (and not very much at that) per square foot of sunlight, so one needs an awful lot of solar panels to get any worthwhile amount of electricity. And for the 16-plus hours/day when the sun doesn't shine, and the wind doesn't blow (or blow at the correct speed), then what? Well, for the cattle-station a hundred miles from the nearest high-voltage line, some kind of battery set-up is the sensible and economical answer; but for the houses in my suburb, it's not.
I might add that the Chinese are the leading producers of solar cells, but strangely, they're going nuclear in a very big way. They're also investing massively in electric rapid transit in their cities, and in electric high-speed inter-city rail. They recently took over the record for fastest commercial average speed from the French.
There are 2 things @ play here - industrial power & transportational power. The former would be things like public lighting, heating, etc that doesn't necessarily need oil or any fluid fuel, but can make do w/ other commercial sources - hydro, nuclear, and so on. If oil is taken totally out of the equation when it comes to this, a good portion of the problem is solved.
The other thing - transportation - is where a Manhattan project would be welcome. One such would be things like solar powered cars, although initially, they may well be hybrids: already, solar powered street lighting is available in places. In countries that have an extensive rail network, coal can work as well (please spare us the global warming concerns - it's been really cold of late... brrrrrrrrr) Unfortunately, all the fluid fuels, be it petroleum, natural gas, et al are to be found in dar ul Islam.
As for the above story, remember when gasoline hit $4/gallon? That was when people did start cutting on their driving, SUV sales froze while hybrids flew off the lots. Good move, Iran, do this, and let the West, for reasons having little to directly do w/ Islam, start accelerating its search for newer fuels.
One more thing - hope South Sudan doesn't join OPEC, but trades w/ the West on its own terms. Buy all their oil @ fair market price, and help them to develop their country into a relatively prosperous one. They're likely to be more Islam-wary than even Ethiopia to their south, and give them troops to help defend them against potential Muslim invaders like North Sudan, Chad & Somalia
Make it $200 for all West cares. We can pay it. Don't forget to use our money to help Egypt, Pakistan, and everbody's darlings; the Palestinians. Paying $10/gallon won't leave us any money to prop up your all sand, no oil muslim buddies. Your financial response to the floods in Pakistan, and the tsunami in Indonesia shamed us cheapskate Westerners. Don't forget the zakat!
One of the saddest tings concerning oil is this...America has barrels upon barrels of oil...in federal emergency reserve...what do we do with the oil we pump from Alaska, Wyoming and Texas? Well, before I retired from the Air Force, I was told that with all our own oil, the gov wants to save it for an emergency...what type of emergency I asked, the price of oil was getting outrageous..."basically WW III, for the military" was what I was told. So one possible fix to the problem we have is this...use the reserved oil now temporarily, while we drill some offshore rigs, then we would not be a dependent nation, that depends on our enemy for oil...after all, Iranian pres has vowed that he will annihilate the "great satan" which is the US, and the "little satan" which is Israel. But the sad part of my plan is this...Pres Obama, I mean king Obama (because he acts like one) does not want to upset his Islamic brother's (yes, believe it or not America, he is Islamic, why do you think some Islamic countries feel he's the prophesied Mahdi and some Islamic countries want him to be the global caliph, do the math) he feels he'll disrespect them if he cuts their oil throats.
Since Cash for Clunkers (hopefully) took the cars older than 1995, which are not able to handle ethanol because of rubber parts, perhaps the switch to ethanol could be sped up. Perhaps the solar technology, which is efficient enough in space applications, could be released for private use and energy tax could just be diverted onto something else. Perhaps self-sufficient construction could become "big business" instead of grid-dependent construction. Perhaps we could grow up as a country and stop the polarization of big business versus individual/Republican versus Democrat, ambition and be reasonable. Perhaps we could re-affirm the Constitution and Bill of Rights and be our own country.