DRILL, BABY, DRILL

Our Tanks Are On Full

The energy crisis is an artificial one, created by bad policies.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: MekhongKurt @ 08/03/2009 3:16:13 PM

    So, Mr. Gingrich, you actually believe your own propaganda. *Our* policies* cause outfits such as OPEC to gouge us at every opportunity? How about our greatly under-pricing of fuel -- look at what the Europeans pay, for instance.

    I imagine if the gods themselves were to express concern about the future of vehicule fuel in particular and energy in general you'd find some reason to oppose them.

    Maybe Rush can help you develop talking points for the day that might happen! :-)

  • Posted By: keenantrue @ 04/24/2009 4:55:33 PM

    Snoooooooreeeee....

    Lets see Newt had the same old same old "let use the fossil fuels we have in the United States" line. He gives the tiniest tip of his hat to doing it in an "environmental responsible" way but doesn't give any specifics on how to do that. He neglects to inform us that most of the home grown energy he wants to use has not been used because it CANNOT be done in an environmentally and cost-effective way.

    Then he goes on to the usual republican suspect of lets give tax breaks to energy companies (who pay virtually no taxes anyway and make record profits quarter after quarter).

    This article is the epitome of the republican party right now. No new ideas, blame those in charge and be as vague as possible about their supposed solutions so that we don't see them for what they are, a bunch of talk.

    Get it through your head people. You CANNOT harvest fossil fuels in an environmentally friendly way. I wouldn't mind if the republicans would just come out and say "Lets use fossil fuels and screw the planet", but this myth that its economically feasible to use polluting substances in a non-polluting way is ridiculous.

  • Posted By: Dr. James @ 04/22/2009 10:24:52 PM

    We need to look at the Bush policy before one can look at the present or future. Newt is great at ideas. He needs to join The President and seek a plan to address energy and a range of issues. America needs teamwork and serious debate on actionable ideas.

  • Posted By: boscobear @ 04/20/2009 8:32:34 PM

    Why are we still listening to the man who was having an affair while he was leading the attacks on Clinton because of the President's affair with Monica and didn't he pester one wife for a divorce while she was in the hosptial being treated for cancer?

  • Posted By: Butterfly Effect @ 04/14/2009 5:43:18 PM

    No wonder nobody reads this rag of a publication, other than a few rich democrats that can afford to dream about utopia. I love it when California democrats say California is leading the way. Califormia is a disaster. The top fiver states with the biggest deficits have the highest taxes, spend the most AND ARE ALL DEMOCRATIC NEST FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS. Thats the fiscal plan Obama is following (its not obama overused excuse that "doing nothning is worse" - its not all or nothing.

    The rich democrats dont care if gas cost $10/gallon. - its a nonfactor to them. The problem is that the other 99% of democrats (the real face of the democratic party) are too dumb (unrelaible, unemployable welfare whores) or too in bed with the government (lazy fat-assed union memebers of all types who would vote the three stooges in office to keep thier undeserved salaries). This country would experience an economic boom if unions were crushed and the welfare vampires were forced off their fat asses. Its not mob rules, its slobs rule.

    • Posted By: rye75 @ 04/16/2009 4:27:41 PM

      You seem to be a bit stuck in the 70's if your big concerns are Unions (a constantly declining portion of the workforce - I think current numbers are something along the lines of 9% of the workforce - only Detroit remains... and I agree the UAW is out of touch) and Welfare (reformed substantially in the 90's under the Clinton adminstration).

  • Posted By: Alchemist65535 @ 04/14/2009 6:00:34 PM

    First, a major flaw in language and hence logic, oil shale is not "DRILLED", it is strip mined. Second, it takes huge quantities of water and energy to process. Where is the water going to come from to produce oil from oil shale in Utah and Colorado? 140% of the water is already allocated. The Colorado River pact overallocates all the water from the area based on wet years more than a century ago. Should we use California's allocation? How about the water that would go to Las Vegas? Arizona? Utah? Colorado? Mexico? Where is the water for oil shale processing going to come from? Maybe we can build a pipeline from the great lakes? And then the landscape is ruined by strip mining with a "popped" shale that is larger than what they took out of the ground? There are abandoned oil shale developments from the last couple of tries litering the landscape. Why don't they make those a profitable sucess rather than starting over from scratch and making a new mess of the land each time? Before they break ground they have to tell where the water is coming from. The water used in the process may very well be more valuable than the oiil so produced in these arid states.

    • Posted By: rye75 @ 04/16/2009 4:24:15 PM

      Well put, Alchemist, and very good point. You'd hope a former Speaker of the House would be more informed on issues, like oil shale, that impact decisions on our national energy policy, but alas!

  • Posted By: blsprehn @ 04/15/2009 1:12:53 PM

    Shale oil has not been developed substantially because it is only cost effective if (1) oil prices are above $65/bbl and (2) the developer is allowed to produce as much carbon dioxide free as they want. So unless energy prices rise, foreign oil will be both cheaper and less environmentally destructive than shale oil.

    The only rational solution is to set firm national policies that rely on both nuclear and renewable energy supplies. Such a policy would both protect us from the obvious environmental damage of our current policies and the political and military stupidity of funding countries that are fundamentally opposed to our principles.

    But don't insult our intelligence and pretend that this will lower the direct costs of power in the short-term. But it may save us greatly in the longer view, and more accurately reflect the real costs of energy..

  • Posted By: rfulle12 @ 04/15/2009 1:04:14 PM

    Typical Republican B.S. Profit with out conscience. Strip mine the oil shale in the Rockies. Pollute pristine beaches on the coasts. Americans would be much more willing to alow these ideas to proceed if historically we had not been shown the damage done to the land. Artificial Crisis, give me a break! WE need new refineries but the oil companies want unregulated use of the environment which as they have proven in the past they will trash and leave for the government (taxpayers)to clean up. As usual all style and no substance. Newt need to go away as he did a few years ago...in disgrace!

  • Posted By: roroes @ 04/15/2009 12:57:03 PM

    Mr. Gringrich. How's tea?

  • Posted By: Defender of Wildlife @ 04/15/2009 12:50:25 PM

    Down with Gingrich. He is an idiot.

  • Posted By: grantha @ 04/15/2009 11:36:41 AM

    Im so sick of everyone just trying to make themselves and their party look good. It's time all you ass#$&@# in power stopped being so selfish about your own self image. If Obama fails, which im sure he wont, we all fail. Get over yourselves and offer some constructive critisism. All you people in power that are bickering about whatever it is your bieckering about, are just making yourselves look bad. History will look back at you and say "wow. What a bunch of selfish, greddy babies."

  • Posted By: bilge12 @ 04/15/2009 10:39:25 AM

    didnt gingrich leave office years ago under some sort of scandel? I know rush is a drug addict-but I can't remember what ginrich did. I think it was a sex scandal

  • Posted By: BG.Bryan @ 04/15/2009 10:35:29 AM

    Can we all agree that the only real, long-term solution is to get away from the use of fossil fuels? Not only for ecological reasons, but geo-political: if we removed are absolute dependence on oil, we would not be dependent on these often unsavory and undemocratic oil kingdoms. How can that be bad? It's time to progress, fuel cell technology is not science fiction, it is real and in use. Unfortunately, so many established and wealthy oil companies (you know, the one's posting all these recording breaking profits amid the recession) would be forced to fundamentally and drastically alter their business models, possibly diminishing the profits they are currently enjoying (extorting) They will fight it tooth and nail. Why couldn't they embrace the future and try to be in the forefront and thereby well positioned? What if the horse and buggy makers had a super-financed lobby when the automobile appeared....we would still be saying "giddy-up"

  • Posted By: Rich Monk @ 04/15/2009 9:36:57 AM

    That's right Newty old boy. Delusion by default.
    Let's just polute the air we breath, the land where food is grown, our oceans, and the rivers, where we get clean drinking water? Same republican crap for the past 40 years. Are you into your 3rd or 4th wife now, Mr. bigoted, racist Christian!

  • Posted By: Heady @ 04/15/2009 4:47:25 AM

    "In addition, we should allow companies to write off 100 percent of their expenses in the first year if their refineries considerably expand America's oil-refining capacity."

    Who determines what "considerably expand" means in context of the oil companies?

    Hell if they give us one extra drop of oil production they'll be quick to jump on the write-off train.

    This guy is silly.

  • Posted By: panhandle @ 04/14/2009 6:53:21 PM

    Who cares what this blowhard thinks?

  • Posted By: jean w @ 04/14/2009 3:45:57 PM

    Newt's a jerk. His answer is to rip the tops off mountains, foul our coastlines, and continue to poison our air. I wish his battery would run out.

  • Posted By: Version @ 04/14/2009 3:39:05 PM

    Why does want hs is saying sound like the same old stuff. This is part of the problem, this guys can and will not think beyond what they can see.

  • Posted By: drcat @ 04/14/2009 3:23:19 PM

    Newt Gingrich is intelligent and a historian of American government yet he continually makes false statements such as, "where government has acted, it has usually made the problem worse." California started acting on energy during the Brown administration. Our laws regulating pollution, requiring energy efficient appliances mean our state uses less energy per capita than most states. Government does get it right more often than Gingrich and the Republicans will accknowledge. Their constant repetition that government is the problem is clearly false.

  • Posted By: TheEngineer4 @ 04/05/2009 6:17:12 PM

    ???continued???

    So if you take that 1000 MW of wind power (or solar) and add in the efficiencies and the availability, you may be at 30% of the rated capacity of the green power source and would ultimately need 3-4 times the amount of wind towers or solar panels just to meet the energy demands of an equivalent traditional power source. The problem here is that this is still not baseload power and traditional sources of power would still be needed to accommodate the needs of the utility customers, or a means of battery or flywheel storage to store the energy from the green power, both of which require significant technology improvements to be viable as a means to provide UPS (Uninterrupted Power Supply) baseload energy.

    Now, don???t get me wrong, I am all for alternate sources of energy to be brought into the fold, but they need to be dependable and not be forced. They need to be competitive on their own merits within the structure of the free market capitalism system and not through federal subsidies. And somebody needs to tell the trees and plants on my farm that CO2 is harmful to the environment. What is being proposed by the green movement is a myth and a costly experiment both hurting our economy and our availability of a reliable baseload power for future generations.

    Do not stifle creativity in energy science and engineering by promoting ideas that in principle and in practice cannot provide the energy needs of our country.

    • Posted By: tc125231 @ 04/14/2009 2:48:44 PM

      Sonny,

      You make some obvious points about constraints of wind and solar as "point" sources of power. Each geographical location has variable output. This means that either total "rated" output has to be "over engineered", or storage would need to be employed (not necessarily as electricity, although it is undoubtedly true that every state change introduces inefficiencies).

      Good for you.

      You then extrapolate this to an unrelated and ignorant conclusion:

      ???They need to be competitive on their own merits within the structure of the free market capitalism system and not through federal subsidies???.???

      There are two problems with this remark.

      1. Many successful technologies have been subsidized. The most recently obvious is the Internet. Sure, it was subsidized via the DoD, but it was heavily subsidized.
      2. There is a long-standing concept in economics, originally referred as externalities, and played out in the classic model described in the ???Tragedy of the Commons???.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

      Basically, there are costs that our current free markets don???t capture. Lung disease from pollution could be one. Global warming is an additional one. If you don???t believe in global warming, go look at the satellite photos again. If you still think it doesn???t exist, I guess your ability to process data is debatable.

      I suppose you could take Freeman Dyson???s position that global warming exists, but ???it???s good???. Even if you were to take that position, I think rational analysis would still raise the question of ???good for who???? and whether your free market, in its current form, captured those costs.

      I have children and grandchildren. I would rather their future wasn???t ???Situation Normal ???AFU.???

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse