Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Supplying the Oil Is the Solution

So, I'm driving around and listening to AM 1030 and a campaign advertisement comes on promoting some Kansan yahoo wanting more wind power. The statement that caught me was, "We can't drill our way out of this." in reference to the high oil prices. Now most of the time that I hear this "can't drill" attitude it is usually in connection with the idea that it would take ten years to get the oil. Now, the obvious problem was that this man's policies is the reason we have been kept from drilling in the first place, but we are here now.

Then came a republican door prize in the ad. If there were only Conservatives running! The ad stated that wind power would take at least ten years before it would be cost effective. The contradiction is so obvious to those of us on the conservative side, that one must wonder what these wind lovers are thinking. I believe Global Warming is the presupposition that leads these people to thinking there is a real difference. So now we have a bad idea that won't decrease the price of gas one penny in order to make us feel all ooey gooey and environmentally safe. It gets better though. While reading Kansas State Representative Tom Sloan's article I am now being told wind energy will someday be competitive with fossil fuels. He writes,

"The cost of wind energy will ultimately determine whether or not wind power will assume a larger role in the nation's energy supply. Although public opinion polls indicate many citizens are willing to pay a higher price for renewable energy, relatively few customers actually have made that choice when presented the opportunity. My legislative efforts are focused on creating the political and economic climate in which wind energy can be cost competitive with "traditional" fuels, and, as such, attractive to utilities to meet their customers' energy needs."

Now how is this climate produced? The article doesn't say. Let me take a stab at it. We lower taxes and subsidize wind energy. We raise taxes and increase bureaucracy on fossil fuel energy. Ta Da. The new climate?! Sounds eerily similar to the burning our food nonsense.

Now keep in mind I am not against wind energy. Let's face it. The power in wind is just not there. It is also not constant. Perhaps some kind of hydro power harnessing the ocean currents would be more realistic. Perhaps Nuclear. Wind? Naaaaahhh. For example the last paragraph says,

"I am also committed to providing the political and economic conditions in which individuals can erect smaller wind turbines to meet their own energy needs and, in partnership with the "traditional utility," sell their excess power. This necessarily requires that partnerships be developed between utilities, the Legislature, and both renewable energy producers and consumers. We are getting there."

This is a complete joke. Perhaps he could have cited some evidence for this that would give me something to look into. The last time I researched into doing this I discovered the costs far exceed anything that would be gained. So all of this nice sounding political speech may have some weight for someone who has a farm like he does, it is moot for someone like myself.

If you haven't understood what I am saying, let me say it clearly. Nothing about this position will reduce the price of oil and gas. There is no miracle cure or miracle energy pill for our society. Oil is it. It's supply and demand. If we abandon the global warming hoax perpetrated by the Left, we may yet once again have a real policy that makes sense.

1 comment:

Ed Groover said...

Yeah. Not much realism from the politicos on the energy issue. How dumb do they think we are? This problem which has been looming for decades has finally come to fruition. And it's going to take several years to get ourselves out of it...IF WE START NOW.

I think you're right that many of them start with a set of ideological presuppositions regarding climate change. It's obvious that the solution includes nuclear, coal, solar, and more oil. What's not immediately apparent is what the politicians gain in denying and restricting any particular piece of the puzzle.