Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Harry Reid's Answer

Harry Reid not only doesn't want us to drill for more oil, he wants us to quit using any fossil fuels at all.


It would be great if we could go to an entirely solar power economy, but that possibility is still years away, and even then we could not ever depend totally upon it. He is willing to crash our economy for an impossible dream.

Get ready to drill and get ready to refine. That is what I want to hear.

20 Comments:

Blogger Tim said...

SR- you need to think outside of the box. We can't drill our way out of this.

Gas is not going to go down unless we have an alternative that is cheaper. And that will only happen with a nudge from Washington.

Realistically, Solar alone won't work, but wind, solar, nuclear, and hydroelectric combined could do most of it. Then, the little oil that we must have could be produced domestically.

Mass transit is another piece of the puzzle.

6:28 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Who uses more enrgy than the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, Senator Reid?

7:21 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

we have more oil in reserve right here than Saudi ever had. why tim, don't you think we can drill outta this mess? the only reason we are in this mess at all is because we weren't drilling last year. and we weren't building nuke plants last year, or hydoelectric last year, etc.
why? because that is what this country likes to do, whine about stuff, we surely don't like to actually solve problems, because what would we cry about tomorrow if we fixed them today?

9:33 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Mark- Please look at this site: http://www.worldalmanac.com/blog/2008/01/world_oil_reserves_and_consumption.html

As you can see, the USA has a little over 21 Billion barrels (1.8%) of proven reserves. We use 20 million a day. So that means that we have enough proven reserves to run this country for 10,000 days before it is ALL GONE. That's about 27 years at the current rate of consumption. Saudi has 262 Billion barrels (22.3%). So if we bought every drop they had, we could run this country (at current levels of consumption) for about 300 years. The problem is that we don't get it all. We have 1.8% of the oil but use 25% of daily world output. Do the math, Mark. Wishful thinking is just that. Fantasy.
Okay, let's quit whining and get busy with these other sources of energy. Living in the past is NOT the solution. Yes, I'd love to go back to 32 cents a gallon and 57 Chevy's, but get real! GAME OVER.
Yes, It IS TIME to stop relying on oil to meet our energy needs. Nuclear is a mixed bag, but I think that eventually, say in 1,000 years, scientists will figure out how to render the waste harmless. In the meantime, we store it responsibly. Coal, well, it is decent energy but it is really a big polluter. "Clean Coal" is a lie. Hydroelectric dams are a great source of power. Note that the "liberals" (FDR) were responsible for exploiting this energy. Trying to do things from the past is reactionary. That's what we have now and it's not working. Let's get real and stop politicizing the issue.

11:42 PM  
Blogger Gayle said...

We need to drill wherever we can and we also need alternative energy sources. We need to begin doing everything we can and we need to begin as soon as possible! To not do so is just plain dumb. The libs constantly whine that it will take years to see any results from drilling. So what? If we don't ever start then we will never see it! This entire thing is totally ridiculous. We can thank the enviro-nuts for being in this mess!

9:39 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

tim, your estimate of reserves is not even half of the most conservative estimates for light crude in this country, and light crude is at best 10 or 20% of what is available, it does not even cover heavy oils, tar sands, oil shale. all of which is really recoverable with current tech. so, your attempt to lie about easily findable information leads me to believe your real concern is the global warming hysteria that is currently fashionable. so I will address this issue. do you know, tim, that even a little bitty volcanic eruption like Mt. st. helens did in the '80s releases more co and co2 in one eruption than all the fossil fuel used since the industrial revolution? do you know, tim, that in the past,there was a hell of a lot more volcanic activity that there is today? why, how did the earth survive that age tim? if co2 kills planets, why did the earth survive? even thrive? now, looking to the future tim, we all know there are going to be more volcanic eruptions in the future, many geologists today tell us we are overdue for a supervolcanic eruption. so tim, if co2 kills planets, and we know full well we are going to have eruptions that make our puny little co2 production quite insignificant, why worry about it? well tim, I'll tell you. because us NOT worrying about global warming won't make Al Gore billions is his carbon credit trading scheme.

4:04 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Mark- site your source to refute my claim of reserves. I gave you mine, but you are not backing up your claims by showing me the data. Did you look at my link? I do care about global warming, yes. But that issue, to me, is secondary. It is also a well known fact that the use of chemical fertilizers generates more CO2 than all the cars in America. Volcanic eruptions? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Get real. Deforrestation is removing the Earth's ability to get rid of the greenhouse gases. Look, we agree that the global warming thing is a strawdog regarding energy independance. Until you show me the facts of where you get your information, I'll stick with what I have seen. If we had all of this oil that you claim we do, there would be no energy crisis. It is a fantasy.

5:00 PM  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Tim: and deforestation is something that any American, me, you, can do absolutely NOTHING about as it occurs predominantly in South America. That's not the issue at all. What will happen when we run out of energy in America? Who will be insulated and who will not? You think Harry Reid will take the energy hit like YOU will take the energy hit? You think you're insulated from the real world like Harry Reid is insulated in the real world. There a reason I have my current epigram on my blog which reads:

"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance from the problem." -- John Galsworthy

What you DON'T do is place ALL your energy eggs in the "NO" basket. You cannot "conserve" your way out energy issues. You need to attack the problem on EVERY LEVEL IMAGINEABLE.

In terms of the oil crisis, a massive amount of the outrageous pricing of oil has to do with the WEAK dollar and with speculators.

The Demorats are simply the Party Of No. No drilling. No refineries. No electrical generation stations. No nuclear. No coal. No gas fired. No solar. No dams. NO CONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE WHATSOEVER.

This is a CERTAIN guarantee of a water crisis, electrical crisis and an ACTUAL oil crisis.

If you attack the energy problem you attack it from every angle possible. You want electric cars as do many of the Left? Where you gonna get the POWER?

Oil is just one side of the equation. We are about to experience national electrical brownouts and blackouts at an unprecedented level. Water and food are next.

BZ

7:25 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

BZ- What you just said is in general agreement with what I said.

"If you attack the energy problem you attack it from every angle possible. You want electric cars as do many of the Left? Where you gonna get the POWER?"

Did I not say lets build nuclear power plants? BTW- last time I looked, republicans have been the ones ignoring infrastructure what the last 20 years or so. No, I do not let Clinton off the hook, either. We can blow 9 billion a month in Iraq so that Shell, BP, Exxon, etc. can make a killing while you and I take it in the keester from every angle. 2000-2006 your party had total control and what did they do? The reason they lost in 06 is because they do not listen to us, they only are interested in enriching themselves and their lobbyist contributors.
From my first post:
"Realistically, Solar alone won't work, but wind, solar, nuclear, and hydroelectric combined could do most of it. Then, the little oil that we must have could be produced domestically."

So where did I say only solar?

I do believe that conservation is very importrant in achieving energy security. Gayle- Did you want to use up all of our oil so that our grandchildren will have none left? Republicans used to be "Conservatives" I guess now they are "Use it all up atives"

8:21 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

well for one source, the most conservative I found, was the usgs. which was still over twice your estimate. and which is deemed by most geologists as extremely conservative. secondly, I used to be in the forestry business,specializing in reforestation. trees are a row crop tim, crying about deforestation is like crying about the corn harvest. there are more trees in this country now than in the 1700s. I'm kind of unimpressed with south america's lack of regard for erosion, they do lack good forest management skills, but the rain forest will recover, and after all the old growth is gone the huge clear cuts will be a thing of the past there too, and they will be rowcropping trees for their needs like we do.
and, just to let you know, all of my vehicles are solar powered, so I bet I'm greener than you, tim. you see, the earth in it's glorious wonder stored solar power for me long before I was ever around. you see tim, billions of years ago vegetation grew via solar power, was eaten by giant lizards who died, got buried in muck and decayed anaerobically, leaving behind an oily substance, some of which I use to power my car. so, solar energy powers my cars.

11:06 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

oh, and you asked what volcanic activity has to do with it? a lot. because upside of volcanic activity, our measly co2 output is nothing.

11:11 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Mark,I'm with you pretty much on GW (global warming) that's not the issue. Oil is a finite resource. Okay you site USGS. Point me to where I can see it! You are still fuzzy. You say this and that, yet you still provide nothing to convince me. Okay, convince me that I am wrong! believe me, if you are right I would love it. Yet agian, we arfe in fantayland until I see yyour facts. When will you all stop crying about "liberals" and speak from truth?

12:39 AM  
Blogger Tim said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:39 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

radford
usgs
methane clathrates
origins of crude in question

I would humbly suggest that if you want info on geology, look up some geologists rather than some hoky encyclopedia. info is avail. at your figertips nowadays.
I added a link on methane clathrates because there is, in most estimates even more hydrocarbon sequestered in those than in oil on this planet. and since we cannot use wind power because it might distress the little birdies, and even worse, screw up the view from the Kennedy compound. and we can't use nuclear power because it is fashionable to get hysterical at the very thought, and we surely can't use solar because putting solar collectors in the light colored, reflective desert would mean retaining solar heat that would have been reflected heat and we are concerned with global warming, 'aint we? we can't use hydroelectric because that makes the poor little fishies have to use ladders to get to their spawning grounds. this makes hydrocarbons about the only option.

6:37 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

okay, I got to laugh at myself here, I fuss about Tim using an encyclopedia as a source, then site a Wikipedia source. okay, chuckle chuckle. I use wiki at times for a quick reference, but would never consider it THE authority on any subject.

6:50 AM  
Blogger shoprat said...

Thank you tim and Mark. Your debate brought some interesting material to light.

7:32 AM  
Blogger benning said...

When silly Harry can show he's gone one entire year without using any petroleum or petroleum by-products I'll think about it. Until then, all I can say to that duplicitous Traitor is, "You first, Jackass, you first."

12:39 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Benning appears to be a "hatah", like we were discussing a couple of posts ago. Even though W lied about a bunch of stuff and got thousands of our soldiers killed in Iraq, I won't call him a traitor. i'm just wondering what Reid did to be called one. Is it because he's a liberal? If we call each other traitors because our politics differ it's more than childish. I guess I'm a traitor for not voting for W.

6:39 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Btw- I have no p[roblem with calling him a jackass.

6:41 PM  
Blogger Crazy Politico said...

Quite simply, when we can figure out an effective way to fly a (realistic, usable) plane without burning oil, haul freight on trains, or move it on ships without oil, then we can get off of oil.

Sure, you can have electric trains and cars, but that electricity has to come from somewhere. Since we know that building Nukes is verboten, that means either coal, or oil as realistic producers of all that electricity.

Hydrogen is a joke. The only "energy positive" way to get hydrogen for everyone's new fuel cell car is to crack natural gas. Even then, it's only a positive energy equation because of the propane and methane that are byproducts of the process.

Cracking water to capture hydrogen requires so much energy we'd need DOZENS of nukes just to provide the electricity to get the hydrogen.

Current solar and Wind are nice "altneratives" but not primary power sources. Both work at the whim of nature. Get a few cloudy days, and you better have a nuke, oil or coal plant to fire up, or put on Jimmy Carter's sweater.

Now does all that mean I don't want us to improve solar, and wind, and vehicles? No, but I'd like the left end of the debate to be realistic, which they won't, and admit we ain't getting off oil in the next 10, or even 50 years, so hamstringing our own production does us no good.

10:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home