Cold side of DC Thermocouple to be powered by the “Sustainability Tax” levied on working poor.

U.S. says wind could power 20 percent of eastern grid

Wind energy could generate 20 percent of the electricity needed by households and businesses in the eastern half of the United States by 2024, but it would require up to $90 billion in investment, according to a government report released on Wednesday.

Forget wind power, by utilizing the Thermocouple we save $52 billion and immediately cover the wasted power usage on Capitol Hill.
Imagine what sort of innovative and expensive NEW GREEN programs will be funded with these savings.
By raising the rates on all forms of energy, the energy abusers are forced to cut back on heating, thus providing the heat sink necessary to complete the circuit.

We wouldn’t need to see a horizon of  whirlygigs afflicting the landscape, either.

This is for a particular commenter who has made another appearance here once more.

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data

Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man’s contributions.

Oh dear, that nasty old sow, Mother Nature, is screwing with man again. Nothing like a poke in the eye with a sharp bit of manmade hubris, is there now.

Methane - powerful greenhouse gas

The two lead authors of a paper published in this week’s Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere. [snip]

Ohmigod! No cow can poot that much, must be Gore running that gianormous houseboat and the Hollyweird swells jetting off to Europe. All those big mouths belching CO2 and farting at those parties did it.

More study
[snip]
…Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it’s too early to know for sure if man’s impact is affecting things at the political cry of “alarming rates.” We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that’s been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years. [snip]

So, that was only an acorn falling from the tree and not the sky.
Global warming BUNGHOLES.

Pain at the pump might pay dividends for the GOP.  With gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, obstructing offshore drilling is downright suicidal.  But Democrats would rather side with the Sierra Club than do anything constructive for US consumers.

And judging by Rasmussen’s latest poll, the public is not amused.  McCain took his first lead over Obama with more people trusting McCain on energy policy.  It seems visions of Nancy Pelosi as our planetary savior aren’t so comforting after a fill up empties your wallet.

But don’t shed tears for Nancy.  She’s got a personal energy plan.  While Republicans continue calls for Democratic action, she’s hawking books at the JFK Library.  You have to hand it to Nancy.  She’s always doing the people’s business.

The bestower of all things worthy, her Grand Benevolence, The Poobah of Propane, The Imparter of Gas, Madame Pelosi declared, that on July 4, 2007, this country would be free of Middle East oil shackles.

War has been waged; congressional and journalist jihadists attacked Big Oil, successfully opposing new domestic exploration and extraction, unleashing the feared WMD ethanol. It worked out well didn’t it.

As Democrats solidified their control of Congress in early 2007, the newly empowered leadership pledged to “truly declare our energy independence” by July 4, 2007.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) announced she would create a panel on energy independence, “accelerate the implementation of existing clean, energy-efficient technologies,” invest in domestic alternatives and “send our energy dollars to the Midwest not the Middle East.”

The broadcast networks – ABC, CBS and NBC – have mentioned “energy independence” more than 60 times since Pelosi first made her “Energy Independence Day” pledge in January 2007.

They haven’t declared success yet, why I don’t know. After all this is an election year.

Truthfully, I haven’t seen success on a scale like this since Khrushchev’s Five Year Plans.

I don’t think we can survive more Pelosi success ideas.

I received this in my email. Not sure of the original source.

(Click the image to see full size)

Full size chart (regularly updated) available here.

If you have any money left after filling your gas tank, you can donate to the Democratic convention in Denver.  But before you buy Democrats champagne bottles and bacon wrapped scallops, ask yourself why they won’t let us build nuclear power plants, drill for offshore oil, build more refineries, or drill in ANWAR.  Hell, I’d donate $25 if they’d end their obstructionism toward sensible intermediate energy policies.

And don’t talk to me about alternative energy sources.  That’s the long-term policy.  Why aren’t Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi doing anything in the short to intermediate terms to alleviate the energy crunch?  Those “big hearted” liberals won’t even back a gas tax holiday.  Since they aren’t lifting a finger to address our energy needs, they’ll live with 1 big party in Denver.

Blood for Oil

The body of a truck driver lies on the road after he was killed by a van while he manned a picket line at the entrance to a wholesale market during a strike over high fuel prices in Granada, Spain on June 10. Another lorry driver was killed on the same day in Portugal during a separate incident at a picket line near Lisbon. (AFP/Jose Luis Sanudo)

I wonder what these environmental cretins have to say about this blood for oil.

The Democrat Party, that is. But first, conservatives are deluded if they believe, as Sean Hannity claims, that domestic drilling and “energy independence” are the path to less expensive gasoline. Crude oil is a commodity, subject to commodities speculation. Engine fuel prices that are lower than world market prices result from government controls, such as in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where you fill your tanks with a wink and smile.

Government control is the only conclusion one can draw from Hannity’s leap from domestic exploration to lower prices at the pump. Increased supply wouldn’t account for a large reduction in price with consumption growing in India, China and other developing countries. Government control is not a conservative viewpoint (If there’s something I’ve missed, I’d welcome a comment) There are other reasons to develop domestic energy sources.

It’s a complicated issue, nevertheless. THIS from Powerline illustrates the party divide on domestic energy development, but how much of the price increase is due to restrictions? I don’t know. Does anyone?

Looks like Barack Obama was a model student at the Jimmy Carter school of Energy Policy. We all know how well those policies worked out.

Obama yesterday:

“You can’t drive your SUVs, eat what you want, and heat your homes to 72 degrees and expect other countries to just say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.”

Carter on July 15, 1979:

“And I’m asking you for your good and for your nation’s security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel”

Hat Tip to Francis Cianfrocca at Redstate who summed it up nicely:

If nothing else, he’s now made completely clear his view that the answer to the global energy problem is for Americans to net-reduce our usage of energy, even before more efficient technologies become available. To Obama, this is leadership. He may suppose that everyone else will say “if you do that, we’ll do it too.” Their actual response is more likely to be: ”Thanks for the cheaper energy, suckers.

This is going to hurt, and it will hurt more before this idiocy subsides. Life is nothing but risks, now these nanny state swells, “cushion me from everything, no bumps in the night” will find the pain of government cuddling coddling.

 Global sell-off spreads through Canada and Latin America

8:41p ET January 21, 2008 (MarketWatch)

SAN FRANCISCO — The global-market sell-off spread Monday as indexes in Canada and Latin America plunged, following routs in Europe and Asia, and setting the stage for sharp declines when the U.S. reopens on Tuesday.

“It is no longer a question of avoiding recession in the U.S. any more. It is a case of damage limitation because the damage has already been done,” said Andrew Clarke, a sales trader at SG Securities in Hong Kong. The U.S. authorities “now have to get on and act fast.” [snip]

If any one thinks I’ve posted the past three items as a comment on economics, wake up. These are about our Congress, our imperial poobah, Dubya and the greed of the states for federal money with no attendant risk.

These are exemplars of a socialist Xanadu, or more to the truth, a mental meltdown. I have a serious problem with the GOP in this untidiness, they are up to their eyeballs in it. Anyone believing the Progressives will fix this financial anarchy, needs institutionalizing immediately.

Kicking over the anthill in a hurricane will get you get a lot of activity; the colony fills up with water and drowns anyway.

Three minutes until the markets open in the U.S.

She says she will make the petroleum producers stop raising prices.

Anyone that will lie to voters in such a blatant way (Clinton’s normal venue) needs to be placed in stocks then pelted with cabbages.

Single trader behind oil record

The man behind the record rise in oil prices to $100 a barrel was a lone trader, seeking bragging rights and a minute of fame, market watchers say.

A single trader bid up the price by buying a modest lot and then sold it immediately at a loss, they claim. [snip]

For the rest of the barking moonbats, at least a 201 course level needs mandating so they can get the facts wrong via stupidity, not ignorance.
However, this assumes there is something other than studding and cat bracing preventing the skull from sagging.

I have no conflicting knowledge that the prior statement is true.

Think positive, this ’slow motion train wreck’ is good for the U.S.

Yes, America needs a recession. Bernanke and Paulson won’t admit it. And investors hate them. We’re all trapped in outdated 1990s wishful thinking about a “new economy” and “perpetual growth.” [snip]

Let’s focus on 17 benefits from this recession. [snip]

1. Purge the excesses of the housing boom
No, it’s not heartless. Not like wartime calculations of “acceptable collateral damage.” Yes, The Economist admits “the economic and social costs of recession are painful: unemployment, lower wages and profits, and bankruptcy.” [snip]

2. U.S. dollar wake-up call
Reverse the dollar’s free fall and revive our global credibility. [snip]

3. Write-offs
Expose Wall Street’s shadow-banking system. [snip]
A lack of transparency is killing our international credibility. Write it all off, now!

4. Budgeting
Force fiscal restraint back into government. [snip]

5. Overconfidence
A recession will wake up short-term investors playing the market. [snip]

6. Ratings
Rating agencies have massive conflicts of interest; they aren’t doing their job. They’re supposed to represent the investors, but favor Corporate America, which pays for the reports. Shake them up.

7. China
Trigger an internal recession in China. [snip]

8. Oil
Force the energy and auto industries to get serious about emission standards and reducing oil dependency.

9. Inflation
Expose the “core inflation” farce Washington uses to sugarcoat reality.

10. Moral hazard
Slow the Fed from cutting interest rates to bail out speculators.

11. War costs
Force Washington to get honest about how it’s going to pay for our wars, other than supplemental bills that are worse than Enron-style debt financing.

12. CEO pay
Further expose CEO compensation that’s now about five hundred times the salaries of workers, compared with about 40 times a generation ago.

13. Privatization
Stop the privatization of our federal government to no-bid contractors and high-priced mercenary armies fighting our wars.

14. Entitlements
Force Congress to get serious about the coming Social Security/Medicare disaster. [snip]

15. Consumers
Yes, we’re all living way beyond our means, piling up excessive credit-card debt, encouraged by government leaders who tell us “deficits don’t matter.” Recessions will pressure individuals to reduce spending and increase savings.

16. Regulation
Lobbyists have replaced regulation. Extreme theories of unrestrained free trade plus zero regulation just don’t work; [snip]
Get real, folks.

17. Sacrifice
“We have not seen a nationwide decline in housing like this since the Great Depression, says Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf. As individuals and as a nation Americans have always performed best in crises, like the Depression or WWII, times when we’re all asked to make sacrifices. Pampering us with interest-rate cuts and tax cuts… setting the stage for this new subprime/credit crisis.
Wake up, the train wrecked. Time to think positive, find solutions, demand sacrifices.

The only difference between the hard times of yesteryear is the surfeit of liberal thought eg. “Let the government save me while I idle away my time.” Perhaps an economic wedgie of hard conditions might change their aversion to self-sufficiency. Then again, they may just starve.

As Vermont dug out from the season’s first major winter snow storm and temperatures plunged below freezing, emergency legislation to provide $1 billion for home heating assistance was introduced today in the Senate by Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy and in the House of Representatives by Congressman Peter Welch.

Showtime!

Stage far left is Rep. Clarabell, shooting himself with seltzer. In the harlequin suits, providing comic relief from that clown are Vermont Sens. Jester and Fool. This misbegotten trio now engages in hand wringing and teeth gnashing over the cost of oil, the effect on Vermonters and of course, Bush did it!

Some quotes:

Sanders–“Skyrocketing home heating bills already are stretching household budgets.”…”Congress must act now to deal with this national emergency.”
Leahy–“The Bush administration is turning a blind eye… His veto has contributed to the looming emergency that this bill addresses.”
Welch—“ It is critical that we provide this emergency assistance to Vermonters facing these exorbitant fuel costs.”

The usual gang of suspects signed on to Sanders bill, a total o 23 out of 100, 18 Donks and 5 RINOs. Out of 435 members, Welch lined up 12 cosponsors including Donna Christensen, D-Virgin Islands who thinks cold is in her refrigerator.

Worse, these fiscal hooligans are the ones who voted against any American self-sufficiency in oil and energy. On drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, or the coasts, each cast a NO vote; they have blocked new refineries. Furthermore, each wishes to tax Big Oil, which will raise your energy costs even higher than present.

Remember, corporations do not pay taxes. They pass all cost of business through to the consumer.

Given that most moonbat Vermonters believe in global warming/climate change perhaps they will explain why the cost of heating is going up. Perhaps they would explain why we shouldn’t drill of oil. Is coal the answer?

Finally, why should taxpayers in the rest of the country pay for their idiocy? Vermont moonbats voted for these misfits; let the moonbats pay for their votes.

Ethanol, once the cure-all to oil problems, facing more heat

4:20p ET November 12, 2007 (MarketWatch)

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The oil-substitute superstar of 2005 has increasingly become the alternative energy whipping boy of 2007. [snip]

Whether ethanol-blended gasoline is actually a cost saver for American consumers is up for debate, as is the effect of diverting massive quantities of corn into fuel on consumer food prices and other non-fuel products.

But lawmakers may be willing to sidestep a major debate on the efficiency of ethanol if oil prices hit the $100 a barrel milestone in the coming days, as they are expected to. Soaring oil prices have already trickled down to consumers now paying $3 a gallon at the pump and this could lead Democratic lawmakers to throw renewed support behind a ramped up ethanol policy ahead of the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays — key driving periods for U.S. motorists.

Washington support steady amid growing debate

[snip] President Bush — a firm supporter of biofuels and federal subsidies for ethanol — wants Congress to turn the one-time alternative energy darling into something even bigger. The president, in this year’s State of the Union speech, called for refiners to blend 35 billion gallons of biofuels — primarily ethanol — into gasoline supplies by 2017, a five-fold increase from the current target that requires more than 7.5 billion gallons to be blended into fuel supplies by 2012. [snip]

Questions — and profits — loom large

During debate over the Energy Policy Act of 2005 bill, the most vocal opponents of corn-based ethanol were fiscal conservatives and those who generally condemned government largess for any industry.

Cost — to the government, producers and the consumer — is still a pivotal issue for some groups. Total government support for ethanol totaled between $5.8 billion and $7 billion in 2006, according to a report released last month by the Global Subsidies Initiative and Earth Track. The groups predict the current biofuels mandate could rack up around $11 billion in costs by 2008 and $14 billion by 2014.

“Total undiscounted subsidies to ethanol from 2006-2012 are estimated at between $68 and $82 billion,” the report said, while raising the mandate further, “would increase total subsidies by tens of billions of dollars per year above these levels.”

If the mandate is raised to 36 billion gallons as lawmakers have suggested, the capital cost alone to meet the target would reach $105.5 billion (in 2007 dollars), according to an October study by John Urbanchuk, director for LECG, LLC, a consulting firm. [snip]

Another scam by Bush, the Dems and the farm lobby. Removal of the tariffs on imported ethanol would drop the cost perceptibly. The ethanol used in South America is processed sugar cane, which is considerably cheaper to produce.

Of course Archer Daniels Midland et.al wouldn’t be getting billions of your tax dollars for converting food into fuel. With the current setup, the ethanol produced costs more than gas per gallon.

One more illustration of the government taking a problem and converting it into a disaster.