 |
 |
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Congress Conjures Up an Energy Deficit Let’s understand a simple fact. You cannot squeeze any more energy out of a gallon of gasoline than already exists. If you mix it with an additive which itself provides less energy, what you get is less energy.
Then, too, there’s a strange notion that 300 million Americans, some of whom have been known to drive cars and trucks, are somehow going to be able to "conserve" their way to "energy independence." You can’t save or conserve the energy in a gallon of gasoline or any other fuel. You either use it or you don’t. If you don’t use it, you better find another way to get to work or anywhere else. Democrat Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, said the energy bill will cut demand for foreign oil and promote non-fossil fuels that will reduce greenhouse gases linked to global warming. This is worse than just being stupid, this is dangerous nonsense because (1) there is no global warming and (2) the only way to reduce the importation of foreign oil is to encourage the discovery, extraction, and refining of the oil sources that are known to exist in and offshore America. Does the new "energy bill" permit for drilling and extraction of the millions, perhaps billions, of barrels of oil in Alaska’s ANWR? No. Does the new bill encourage the exploration for oil and natural gas off the nation’s continental shelf on our vast east and west coasts? No. Did it give the oil companies any tax breaks to build the billion-dollar refineries the nation needs? No. Did it encourage the building of nuclear plants? No. In fact, the Democrats wanted to roll back the $13.5 billion in "tax breaks" which some might otherwise call "incentives" that are granted oil companies. When you consider how much it costs to explore, extract, transport and refine oil, $13.5 billion is chump change, but Congress wanted to grant all kinds of tax breaks and other incentives to wind, solar, and biomass energy producers when none of these alternative forms of energy produce enough to keep the lights on in any American city, nor ever will. Democrats claimed that American motorists will eventually save $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs. How anyone could make such a claim when even kindergartners know that the price of a barrel of oil is close to $100 defies reality. The only thing that will reduce the price of a barrel of oil is more oil. It’s called supply and demand. The demand for oil worldwide is increasing because nations such as China and India are becoming more productive in the global marketplace and their citizens want to drive to work just like we do. More cars mean more competition for existing oil supplies. Improving economies mean more people want to eat meat and you get meat by feeding livestock corn, but the new "energy bill" also doubles the production and use of ethanol which is made from corn. As the price of corn rises, so does the cost of everything else, from food to fuel. Finally, as the perfect example of how totally idiotic this new "energy" bill is, it includes a ban on the incandescent bulb by 2014, beginning with a phase-out of the 100-watt bulb by 2012, just five years from now. The bill, signed by the President, runs counter to every standard of economics, physics, and common sense. If this is what Congress does with regard to energy, can you imagine what it would produce in terms of health care? The American people could have filled the House of Representatives and the Senate chambers with chimpanzees and probably gotten a better "energy bill" than that foisted upon us by our elected representatives. A donation to the Center is your guarantee that you will read careful researched facts regarding major issues such as energy. Please give what you can. Our on-site link is secure and your donation is processed by our webmaster and applied directly and exclusively to funding the site. Thank you! In mid-December, while thousands of people in the Midwest prayed that their power would be restored in order to survive the freezing weather and an ice storm descended on the northeast, it took less than 24 hours for the environmentalists of New Jersey to raise their voices against a proposed offshore natural gas terminal. The Newark, NJ-based Star-Ledger, largest daily in the State, put the story on the front page of its December 12 edition. Exxon Mobil announced it was prepared to invest a billion dollars to provide a new source of fuel to a region, according to the newspaper, "where rising demand and scare supplies have led to spikes in heating and electric bills." "New Jersey’s state and federal legislators," said a December 13 editorial in the Asbury Park Press, "should let the energy company know in no uncertain terms that our offshore is off limits." The headline on the editorial read, "Say ‘no thanks’ to ExxonMobil." Need it be said that the editorial offered no alternative answer to the region’s energy needs? Various environmental organization spokespeople were immediately heard from. "Here’s another bad actor that wants to bring fossil fuels, pollution and industrial development to our cleaner, healthier ocean. Who’s next, Darth Vader"," said Cynthia A. Zipf of Clean Ocean Action." In January, Ms. Zipf was among the voices opposed to extending the operation of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant, despite its agreement to invest close to $13 million in coastal improvements to meet federal and state environmental standards. Andrew Mencinsky, executive director of Surfer’ Environmental Alliance, called the natural gas project "an ecological disaster waiting to happen—one that could be triggered by an accident or a terrorist attack." Yeah, right. Terrible things could happen, might happen, or may happen. In fact, accidents happen. That’s why they’re called accidents. People and businesses go about their lives acting with reasonable caution. We don’t live our lives based on what the Greens call "the precautionary principle", the belief that any possibility of a problem is sufficient reason to not precede with any project. Were that the case none of us would never get behind the wheel of our car because auto accidents kill about 40,000 Americans every year. Once passed the usual environmental scare-mongering, the Star-Ledger article reported that, "Industry experts note during the past 40 years, LNG (liquid natural gas) ships have delivered more than 45,000 cargoes worldwide without a tank failure." The facility that Exxon Mobil proposes to build would be so far out in the Atlantic it would not be seen from the shore. Contrast this with various proposed wind farm proposals that would not only destroy the view of the ocean, but also provide infinitely less actual power and energy than the natural gas facility would. Environmentally, wind farms are bird Cuisinarts, killing them by the thousands every year. The irony of the initial environmental protests is that, as the Star-Ledger article noted, liquid natural gas, LNG, "is viewed by many, including some environmentalists, as a cleaner and potentially cheaper alternative for generating electricity." Since the legislators that represent New Jersey in Congress are all Greener than Green, we can pretty much assume that they will oppose the LNG terminal. They are on record as not wanting any exploration of their part of the continental shelf to discover and extract any oil or natural gas. What they think the growing population of the northeast and the nation will use for energy or where we will get it remains one of those great mysteries, but be assured one or all of them will demand that the U.S. become "energy independent." If the Exxon Mobil project is approved, a Rutgers University study, undertaken by the Blaustein School of Planning and Public Policy, concludes that it would generate about $3 billion in economic activity over the course of its lifetime. A state that boasts the highest property taxes, one of the highest sales taxes, and more people leaving than arriving probably shouldn’t be taking advice on billion-dollar investments from environmentalists and newspaper editorial writers. You’re missing a lot of fun if you’re not visiting our daily blog. Tell your friends about it, too.
©
2008 Alan Caruba. |
||||||||||||||||||||
So, when Congress passed a so-called energy bill in mid-December that demanded more "fuel efficiency" by a measure of forty percent, requiring that automobiles be built to get 35 miles per gallon in 2020 as opposed to the former mandate of 25 mpg, it was essentially telling American auto makers to start making cars out of paper mache or something so lightweight that the driver and passengers will have to be extracted from a crash with a sponge.