 |
 |
By Ernest Istook
The visuals are terrific. Imagine the Empire State Building with a windmill on top rather than King Kong. That’s how the New York Post depicted Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s latest idea. Another illustrator adorned the Brooklyn Bridge with windmills atop its towers.
It’s all because Bloomberg proposed that the Big Apple should blossom with windmills to provide at least one-tenth of its power.
What if his idea caught on? Why not mandate that every building taller than a few stories sport a rooftop windmill? We could include the Washington Monument. And every TV and radio antenna. And every hilltop and mountain, including those in national parks.
Don Quixote would be proud. But had Bloomberg done the math, he’d know that even if Manhattan were topped by a solid block of windmills, they wouldn’t come close to meeting the city’s power consumption.
Wind power has its place as a power source, but it’s not a place at the top. It provides less than one-tenth of 1 percent of U.S. electricity because it costs more to produce. The wind may be free, but the equipment is expensive.
The costs are even dearer if you follow Bloomberg’s other suggestion, namely floating windmills in the middle of the ocean.
How many windmills does it take to meet the power needs of a typical city, much less New York City?
At www.scitizen.com, Kurt Cobb worked the numbers. Generously, he presumed the windmills would use 5-megawatt turbines – generating three times the output of a typical 1.5-megawatt turbine. He compared that with a 500-megawatt fossil-fuel (coal) power plant needed to power a city of 300,000 people. A typical power plant, he noted, would cover 300 acres, but use only 30 of those for the actual facility.
Cobb calculated it would take 233 5-megawatt wind turbines to equal the coal plant’s output, since the wind doesn’t blow constantly. Each would need to be spaced 2,065 feet away from the others (five times the diameter of their 413-foot rotors). Adding the rotor diameters to the spacing requirement equates to a 110-mile long line of windmills, half a mile in width.
It comes to 55 square miles. That’s to provide electricity for a town of 300,000 people. Read more…
Related:
CleanSkies.Org’s Denise Bode: Bloomberg Backs Off
By Ernest Istook
Environmentalists thought they had a lock on the current “progressive” Congress.
That lock is being pried open by public outrage about fuel and food prices – the consequence of wayward environmentalism run rampant.
Energy has become the biggest issue in America, and left-leaning politicians are either waking up to it or suffering a nightmare.
The repercussions are still in early stages as the ripple effect goes beyond the price of gasoline.
* Ethanol – the left’s favorite remedy (next to bicycling) – has literally come a cropper. The expansive mandate to substitute food for fuel has driven food prices up while doing little for clean air.
* Efforts to pin the blame elsewhere are not going well. Targeting oil speculators has found little traction. Blaming oil companies for not drilling on every current lease hasn’t worked, because people understand there’s not a gusher in every acre.
* Public opinion supports ending congressional bans on drilling where we know we can find oil and gas, offshore in particular. “Drill here, Drill now, Pay less” is a more popular slogan than “Not in my backyard.”
* Mass transit use is up, but that generates demand for more government spending. (Government subsidies pay for 75 percent of transit costs). Those who ride shift their transportation costs off onto taxpayers. Where will the billions come from to pay for this?
People want solutions, but many in Washington are focused on avoiding blame. Congress has dropped even below lawyers as the least-popular folks in America with 91 percent of Americans NOT approving of Congress’ work. Read more…
Related:
By Mary Fallin
The debate over exploiting America’s domestic oil and gas reserves has focused primarily on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and on offshore regions currently off-limits to exploration. While we should drill in those areas to reduce our reliance on oil imports, a third resource, the vast oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain West, could be even more crucial in our quest for energy independence.
The Green River formation underlying parts of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado could hold as many as two trillion barrels of oil, trapped in rocks relatively close to the surface. Production from those deposits could reach ten million barrels of oil per day — virtually tripling our current domestic production — according to a report by the Department of Energy.
It takes a geologist to fully understand the potential of oil shale. In simple terms, oil shale is sedimentary rock saturated with a petrochemical substance called kerogen. It’s oil that didn’t quite make it to liquid status. Read more…
Related:
Hat tip: American Anachronism
Former Congressman Ernest Istook took time out his busy schedule to reply to a blogger’s misgivings concerning the new Democrat mantra against “Big Oil,” in particular, their criticism that the oil companies are not exploiting the vast majority of already granted oil drilling leases. Below is Mr. Istook’s reply:
Col. Ward —
First, thank you for your service to our country. We can never express that often enough. Your general description of the oil and gas business is on-target. And the congressional comment you cite sounds to me like it came straight out of the playbook of environmentalists who want to mislead Americans. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) is not alone in the claims he makes. (And here’s a weblink to his comments)
Evidently, talking points are being circulated encouraging a lot of Congressmen to make claims like this. Here’s another example from a floor speech by Rep. David Wu (D-OR): “WHY SHOULD WE OPEN LAND FOR DRILLING WHEN BIG OIL ISN’T EVEN DRILLING WHERE THEY HAVE LEASES?” (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Wu goes on: “Madam Speaker, it is no wonder that the only Republican solution to our record high gas prices is more drilling. Who would expect anything less when two former oil executives occupy the White House? The problem is that this has been the Republican energy plan for the last 7 years. It was created in secret by Vice President CHENEY and oil executives. And it is responsible for the record high oil prices that we all face at the pump today. Republicans claim that we could lower the price at the pump if we would only approve more and more drilling leases. That is their rhetoric. Here are the facts. Oil companies do not need new areas to drill. They need to focus on areas that are already opened to them. Of the 42 million acres of Federal land currently leased by oil and gas companies, only about 12 million acres are actually being drilled to produce oil and natural gas. Madam Speaker, if the Republican claims about more drilling are correct, why aren’t they demanding Big Oil explore drilling on the 30 million acres of Federal land that are already open to them but that they refuse to explore?”
Believe me, with oil at $130 per barrel, they would drill on those lands if it made sense to do so! No, not all oil and gas leases are “being used”, because not all of them have production-worthy quantities of oil or gas. Lots of people have property that is not being used, but government doesn’t use it as an excuse to take it away, or to forbid the owners from buying other property.
First, a company may lease property, but never have the funds to properly explore it or drill an exploratory well. Second, after paying for further tests (such as seismic), they often decide the lease isn’t worth the high, high costs of drilling after all. Or they may hold onto the lease for years until either higher oil prices or new technology makes it feasible to drill. Third, a company may lease property but drill on another tract (which drains a “pool” that covers multiple leased tracts), so perhaps they’re counting it as “not used” if no well is sunk on that particular piece of property. Fourth, they may try to drill and be blocked by government bureaucrats, environmental lawsuits, etc.
Finally, not all acres are alike. Some have lots of oil. Others have virtually known. Saying they’re not drilling for oil everywhere is like faulting them for not digging a gold mine on every acre.
I’ll also check around to see if there’s a more specific comeback to that.
Thanks for writing. –Ernest Istook
Related:
Hat tip: Gateway Pundit
Tomorrow, Congressman Istook will have a follow up companion piece on worldnetdaily.com
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iBAvPDNVB8&hl=en]
Update: See Ernest Istook’s article in Human Events, published March 27th, Mismanaging the Mortgage Mess:
Bad decisions travel in pairs. Worse, they sometimes travel in mobs.
Consider how government is overreacting to our mortgage mess — proving the adage that nothing is so fouled-up that Congress can’t make it worse:
• Taxpayers could be hit with a $300 billion-plus tab to help homeowners who filed false loan applications as well as those just struck by bad luck.
• Mortgage rates could go up and their availability go down if Congress rewrites laws to shift the losses from individuals to companies — which will want to recoup those losses through stiffer terms for future borrowers….Continue Reading >>
Original Story, 3/25/08:
According to Tammy McCullar, president of the Oklahoma Association of Realtors (OAR), the Association’s leadership team moved to create the “Good Thing You’re in Oklahoma” campaign in response to some of the national media reports about the U.S. housing market:
Real estate is local, and Oklahomans are not buying or selling their homes in a national housing market. Our ‘Good Thing You’re in Oklahoma’
campaign is designed to present the facts about the Oklahoma housing market, which
remains an affordable, stable and secure source of value as a long-term investment.
Despite the National downturn, the Oklahoma housing market has been solid in 2007, increasing an average of over 1% in value per month over the course of the year. Oklahoma had another strong year in the housing market, with home values increasing by 5.6% in 2007. Oklahoma finished 2007 with the third highest number of homes sold on record.
Lisa Yates, CEO of OAR was quoted in the Oklahoman:
“Half of the people don’t say the market is excellent or good. But it is good, and in some parts it’s excellent,” Yates said. “Extrapolating, half the people in Oklahoma don’t have a very positive view of the housing market.”
And that, she said, casts an emotional cloud over Oklahoma housing that is at odds with price increases and only a slight drop in sales.
In other words, people are spooked unnecessarily, she said.
According to Ernest Istook, former Congressman from Oklahoma, the national economy might not be exactly some Democratic political candidates may have their constituents believe, according to a blogcast he did with the Hertage Foundation, yesterday. Listen below to what Istook, and Heritage Foundation economists think the government can and should do about this.
By Ernest Istook
Cheaters never win? They’ll win billions from the “economic stimulus” package that’s rushing through Congress. Over five million people who file phony tax returns can expect to receive at least $300 each (and probably more) in checks from the U.S. Treasury.
The claimed purpose is to put money in people’s hands so they’ll spend it and boost the economy. Many in Washington don’t seem to care which of those hands are dirty. There’s another purpose, too: It’s political stimulus, to buy voter support in this fall’s elections. Even these millions of tax cheaters might vote to keep those in office who give them such a windfall.
The $150-billion package includes about $100-billion worth of tax “rebate” checks. By insisting that checks also be sent to those who don’t pay income taxes — but who DO report earning at least $3,000 — liberals push money out the door toward a huge group who already defraud the government each year.
How does this work? Read more…
By Ernest Istook
We can’t afford Congress. It’s driving America’s cost-of-living through the roof.
Any tax cut or “economic stimulus” we might get this spring is peanuts compared to how Washington keeps jacking up the price of everything that’s important.
By itself, last month’s energy bill will make food, cars, gasoline and even light bulbs more expensive. Washington is also the culprit behind high medical bills and health insurance, washing machines that have doubled in price, and our wonderful, more-expensive “lo-flo” toilets that don’t flush right.
All this is on top of what red tape already costs us. A 2004 government report admitted that federal regulations cost our economy at least $1.1 trillion each year. That’s $3,666 per person, so multiply that by the number of people in your household. And remember that’s before the 2007 energy bill. And in addition to taxes.
The new energy laws are a leftist’s dream and a supply-sider’s nightmare. As 2008 starts, we’re paying $3 (often more) for a gallon of gasoline. That’s up about a fourth (64 cents) from a year ago. The Heritage Foundation calculates the new energy bill will boost gas prices over $5 a gallon by 2016. Yet rather than let us produce more oil domestically, Congress keeps areas off-limits from drilling that could raise supply and lower prices. Read more…
By Ernest IstookWhen is $20 billion in pork-barrel spending not enough?
Answer: When “preventing a recession” becomes an excuse for Congress to spend more.
They just gave us a 3,417-page “omnibus” bill, finishing the year with 11,000 special projects earmarks ($20 billion worth!) last year. Now they have a new excuse to add more: economic stimulus.
But one person’s shot in the arm is somebody else’s fear of needles. Even good ideas can be hijacked, and in Washington they usually are.
If President Bush’s State of the Union address opens the door by proposing a stimulus package, then every special interest in Washington will push their pet cause in the name of boosting the economy.
It will be a rerun of 2001 when Congress eventually approved a rebate of up to $300 for every taxpayer. Most Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, opposed it for two reasons: First, because the bill contained permanent tax-rate reductions, including capital gains. Second, because the $300 rebate only went to actual taxpayers. Pelosi and friends wanted to send a $300 government check to everyone, regardless of age and regardless of whether they’d paid taxes or not.