Obama To Open Domestic Offshore Drilling

[UNTflyer]

It's a good start.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T06520100330

[SilverEagle]

In a somewhat related matter..... another good announcement.

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/100331-Nissan-Announces-Pricing-for-Electric-Leaf/

$25,000 electric car w/100 mile range. Another great (and more appropriate) step towards energy independence.

Edited March 31, 2010 by SilverEagle

[UNT90]

In a somewhat related matter..... another good announcement.

http://usnews.rankin...-Electric-Leaf/

$25,000 electric car w/100 mile range. Another great (and more appropriate) step towards energy independence.

Uh... remind me, how is electricity produced again?

That's if this thing ever becomes marketable.

[SilverEagle]

Uh... remind me, how is electricity produced again?

That's if this thing ever becomes marketable.

Ok, MOST electricity is produced by coal, then natural gas, and hopefully wind power. Who knows, you might be able to buy a device to charge up your electic car batteries (in the near future) like this....

http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=coleman+solar+batter++charger&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=RXezS_n1DZHSMq3c6ZkN&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQrQQwAA

But hey, lets not look at being innovative. That might hurt the oil industry and create new technical jobs for the US.

Edited March 31, 2010 by SilverEagle

[UNT90]

Ok, MOST electricity is produced by coal, then natural gas, and hopefully wind power. Who knows, you might be able to buy a device to charge up your electic car batteries (in the near future) like this....

http://www.google.co...ved=0CBkQrQQwAA

But hey, lets not look at being innovative. That might hurt the oil industry and create new technical jobs for the US.

Mostly by coal. So you are OK with increasing coal burning plants and the effect that this will have on the environment?

As far as your solar batteries, none have the power needed to power these cars, and even if they did, what will people do when you get a couple of back to back cloudy days?

This is not the answer. If it were, it would have been done years ago. It's not like this is new technology.

Edited March 31, 2010 by UNT90

[UNTFan23]

I wonder how much it would cost to recharge the batteries at ~$0.12/kW hr compared to filling up a 15 gallon tank at $2.60/gallon.

Something else I think should be mentioned is that is looks like the batteries represent 1/3 of the sticker price. Something to keep in mind if it ever becomes necessary to replace the batteries.

Edited March 31, 2010 by UNTFan23

[SilverEagle]

Mostly by coal. So you are OK with increasing coal burning plants and the effect that this will have on the environment?

As far as your solar batteries, none have the power needed to power these cars, and even if they did, what will people do when you get a couple of back to back cloudy days?

This is not the answer. If it were, it would have been done years ago. It's not like this is new technology.

They are not solar batteries. They are battery chargers. In your haste to be dismissive to me, you didn't look very close at the link. And as to the cloudy days...... that is when you can plug it into the grid...or perhaps a enterprising person could invent a small wind charger to use at home to help charge the car.

Edited March 31, 2010 by SilverEagle

[UNTflyer]

But hey, lets not look at being innovative. That might hurt the oil industry and create new technical jobs for the US.

Let's not get dramatic. The oil industry is not the reason electric cars have not been marketbale. It's all about cost and efficiency.

[UNTflyer]

Wind power is more expensive than solar. It costs $35,000-40,000 to install a wind turbine with the capacity to power an average home. That takes almost 17 years before your investment pays off, not counting maintenance costs.

For solar, the average cost to power an average home is $16,000. That's still 7 years before you come out ahead.

Edited March 31, 2010 by UNTflyer

[eulesseagle]

Pumping our own energy is something we should have been doing years ago. That way we don't have to go over to the Saudi's and bow and say thanks for you giving us your oil and thank you for letting us fight your wars with our men.

If we had been engergy independent in the first Gulf War would we have really cared if Saddam took over Kwait? I would have viewed it as a regional conflict just like the Iraq-Iran War. Let the arab states handle their own problem.

However, I do agree that we should go after the terrorist where ever they hide for the protection of our country.

As far as the "green cars".....just give me cheap gas and not some souped up moped on four wheels that eats up my electricity. What do ya do when your wife forgets to tell you she already drove 90 miles and you get stranded between denton and decatur? battery for gas car....$50--------------battery cells for elect car $10,000. Hummm, let me think about that. Heck, by the time this thing gets into production with the "union labor" the car will cost a lot lot lot more.

[KRAM1]

Interesting that folks get excited about an electric car and how it will help save the planet and lessen our dependence on foreign oil, etc. Then they "wake up" and recall how electricity is produced, the costs involved in replacing the car batteries when that becomes necessary, the costs of hooking up a home charging station, the effects on the environment of both building and disposing of the batteries, etc., etc. And, when those power rates climb in the summer and winters and years to come, how will that make the "cost" model work?

I have no problem with anyone who wants to buy and drive an electric or hybrid automobile. It is another choice that our free enterprise and capitalistic system has provided for us. So, if you want one, great buy one and enjoy the ride. Just don't try to convince me that it is any help at all in lowering our dependence on foreign oil, reducing "green house gases", improving the quality of our landfills, etc. In fact, it may end up creating a bunch of junk cars that no one wants when the battery life begins to drain and folks try to dump them on some unsuspecting buyer before they have to replace the batteries. I wonder what the resale value will be after about four years on these "wonder cars"?

BTW, there is plenty of oil in Alaska to power this nation for many many years. Want to rid the nation of foreign oil? Build some nuclear power plants and drill baby drill for domestic oil. Seems simple enough for me.

[SilverEagle]

Wind power is more expensive than solar. It costs $35,000-40,000 to install a wind turbine with the capacity to power an average home. That takes almost 17 years before your investment pays off, not counting maintenance costs.

For solar, the average cost to power an average home is $16,000. That's still 7 years before you come out ahead.

With current technology it is. But remember the days when computers were so expensive that businesses used to buy TIME on a computer because owning one was too expensive?

The first computer I ever owned (about 15 years ago) cost me about $1700, and was not as technologically advanced as most blackberries and/or I-phones.

BTW, I wasn't being dramatic....just somewhat sarcastic.

[UNTFan23]

With current technology it is. But remember the days when computers were so expensive that businesses used to buy TIME on a computer because owning one was too expensive?

The first computer I ever owned (about 15 years ago) cost me about $1700, and was not as technologically advanced as most blackberries and/or I-phones.

BTW, I wasn't being dramatic....just somewhat sarcastic.

From my perspective, when it comes to wind power over solar power and technology, solar power technology is far more advanced than wind power. Solar power also still has lots of improvement to go to gain higher efficiencies of turning solar energy into electrical energy. The concept behind wind power has been around for ages, thus it has most likely peaked in terms of technological advances.

What will always keep wind power costs high is material costs.

[UNTflyer]

I think the most efficient energy source (lifetime facilities cost $/btu) is coal, followed by nuclear, natural gas, and oil.

Peak oil is a myth. There is enough oil in the oceans, in the desert sands, in the mountains, and in the frozen wastelands to last the world several hundred years. And it will still be cheaper to get than wind or solar energy. Even nuclear will be more viable than wind and solar power.

Edited April 1, 2010 by UNTflyer

[SilverEagle]

Generating electricity is basically turning generators and/or alternators with the most cost effective power source available. With the traditional power plant set ups (coal, nuclear,natural gas) you heat up steam which then is used to turn the generators. I don't understand why turning a gear box that is connected directly to windmill blades, that then turns the generator/alternator is somehow, in most people's opinion, less effecient. I'm guessing it might have something to do with the days that the wind is not blowing. But some days the wind blows a lot and IMHO the technology will continue to develop to store it for use on the slow days.

I was surprised to find out (years ago) that trains are not actually moved by their diesel engines. The diesel engines on a train are used to turn alternators, that in turn provide electricity to the electric motors on the "trucks", that actually move the trains. It seemed like a very inefficient system to me.

[UNTflyer]

I don't understand why turning a gear box that is connected directly to windmill blades, that then turns the generator/alternator is somehow, in most people's opinion, less effecient.

It's all about how much power is generated for the amount of money it costs to produce and maintain the turbine.

But hey, if you guys like $800 electric bills go for it. It will be even more when you get your electric car.

[FirefightnRick]

More than likely we won't ever see a drop of oil from this announcement. Obama needs favoritism for the upcoming Cap and Tax-To-Death bill in the senate and he just threw RINO's a bone.

Obama's False Promise on Offshore Drilling

the plan is defined more by what it restricts than what it opens up. The Obama administration chose to take off the table large portions of the OCS in an announcement that was supposed to be about expanding American energy.

The new plan includes:

* No drilling in the Pacific Ocean.

* No drilling in a large portion of the Atlantic Ocean.

* No drilling in some of the most promising areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

* No drilling in much of Alaska.

While opening up any portion of the OCS for responsible energy development appears to be a great step forward, the truth is that none of this has been finalized, and most new drilling will not occur until after 2012 at the earliest.

Obama knows oil is bound to go through the roof, and when it does, and the tiny partial of drilling is delayed due to the enviromentalist tying it up in court for no telling how long, he can instead lay blame on the oil companies for not going forward with drilling with hopes he's done enough to slow down his falling approval polls and get his next agenda through.

By the way, when you install a personal wind generator, it produces electricity that is immediately returned back into the grid. It doesn't run your house. It's not even hooked up to your house but instead tied directly into the nearest grid insertion point near your house. There is currently no efficient, and more importantly SAFE way to store personal wind generated electricity. The electric company in turn deducts a percentage of money per KW from the amount of electricity your generator produced off your monthly electric bill, every three months.

Rick

Edited April 1, 2010 by FirefightnRick

[Censored by Laurie]

More than likely we won't ever see a drop of oil from this announcement. Obama needs favoritism for the upcoming Cap and Tax-To-Death bill in the senate and he just threw RINO's a bone.

Obama's False Promise on Offshore Drilling

Obama knows oil is bound to go through the roof, and when it does, and the tiny partial of drilling is delayed due to the enviromentalist tying it up in court for no telling how long, he can instead lay blame on the oil companies for not going forward with drilling with hopes he's done enough to slow down his falling approval polls and get his next agenda through.

By the way, when you install a personal wind generator, it produces electricity that is immediately returned back into the grid. It doesn't run your house. It's not even hooked up to your house but instead tied directly into the nearest grid insertion point near your house. There is currently no efficient, and more importantly SAFE way to store personal wind generated electricity. The electric company in turn deducts a percentage of money per KW from the amount of electricity your generator produced off your monthly electric bill, every three months.

Rick

Idiocracy at its finest. Thank you.

[KRAM1]

Idiocracy at its finest. Thank you.

Why, because you disagree?

[Censored by Laurie]

Why, because you disagree?

Well yes...but to your point, no.

Its laughable that Rick and people of a like ilk are just so dug in that they have to find ways to criticize wins. Rather than being happy that the off-shore drilling which you have been clammering about for years now is starting, you must search out the negative.

Say this drilling is successful, both economically and environmentally, and its scope is widened to all the places Rick lists...his next post would be a bitch that drilling is prohibited in the Washington Monument reflecting pool, Rae's Creek at Augusta National and the Ganges.

Idiocracy.

[yyz28]

CBL,

You attack Rick, yet you don't address the points raised by him or the article he posted. Is he or the author of the article right? ...or are you and the people who are saying this will work as advertised by the administration right? Who knows? I don't. You don't. Rick doesn't. ...but there is room for questioning our government - Frankly, I think it is quite wise to do so - and I don't really trust what our government tells us, regardless of the party, until I check it out for myself.

This appears to be a bone as Rick's article describes, but we won't really know (and that's you included) until we see it in action.

The name calling, quite frankly, is getting a little old. I'm all for debate and disagreement, but stooping to name calling is a bit uncalled for.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

The name calling, quite frankly, is getting a little old. I'm all for debate and disagreement, but stooping to name calling is a bit uncalled for.

Idiocracy is not "name calling". It is a reference to a scenario played out in the movie with the same name in which intelligence is slowly weeded out of society to an extreme (but comedic) degree.

While I don't see the full connection of FFR's comments to this reference (feel free to enlighten me, CBL), I certainly don't consider it name calling.

[EagleGreen]

More than likely we won't ever see a drop of oil from this announcement. Obama needs favoritism for the upcoming Cap and Tax-To-Death bill in the senate and he just threw RINO's a bone...

...By the way, when you install a personal wind generator, it produces electricity that is immediately returned back into the grid. It doesn't run your house. It's not even hooked up to your house but instead tied directly into the nearest grid insertion point near your house. There is currently no efficient, and more importantly SAFE way to store personal wind generated electricity. The electric company in turn deducts a percentage of money per KW from the amount of electricity your generator produced off your monthly electric bill, every three months.

Rick

I'm not sure what the link was to (I'm always afraid I will end up on some "governmental watch list" if I click on your links) but I will say that we have a wind-powered generator on our farm that generates electricity for the site (stored in batteries that we've had no safety concerns with)! It's a small one (that's what she said) and doesn't generate the royalties of the big ones...but it's green living! Go Mean Green!

Edited April 1, 2010 by EagleGreen

[Green Guy Bass]

Mostly by coal. So you are OK with increasing coal burning plants and the effect that this will have on the environment?

As far as your solar batteries, none have the power needed to power these cars, and even if they did, what will people do when you get a couple of back to back cloudy days?

This is not the answer. If it were, it would have been done years ago. It's not like this is new technology.

You might be the biggest pessimist ever.

[Green P1]

I'm not sure what the link was to (I'm always afraid I will end up on some "governmental watch list" if I click on your links) but I will say that we have a wind-powered generator on our farm that generates electricity for the site (stored in batteries that we've had no safety concerns with)! It's a small one (that's what she said) and doesn't generate the royalties of the big ones...but it's green living! Go Mean Green!

This can't be true. I mean... my uncle in Oklahoma has the same setup on his farm, but it can't be true can it?

Edited April 1, 2010 by Green P1