TheJOTUS

The Jim of the United States

Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category

A Few Points On Wind Power

Posted by TheJOTUS on August 22, 2010

I’ve said before that I have always had conservative beliefs–even as a kid.  But when looking back on it, I think it was my Uncle Curtis that really solidified where I was on the political spectrum.  I don’t think he has any idea how influential he was on me.

With that said, I will be posting some various thoughts from Uncle Curtis.  At least until he figures out how to post on here himself.  I joke, I joke.  At any rate, here is a piece on the benefits of wind power, or lack thereof:

Regarding wind power generation (wind turbines), time to back up the facts with sources.  Below are the facts.  The following is the truth about wind power.

First, it takes a minimum wind speed to generate electricity from a wind turbine. The environmentalists like to use the “8 MPH” wind speed as their number, but that is TOTALLY misleading, because the amount of electricity generated at an 8 MPH wind is insignificant. It really takes 25 MPH wind to generate real power.

“Cut-in Speed – Cut-in speed is the minimum wind speed at which the wind turbine will generate usable power. This wind speed is typically between 7 and 10 mph for most turbines. A 10 kilowatt wind turbine may not generate 10 kilowatts until wind speeds reach 25 mph. Rated speed for most machines is in the range of 25 to 35 mph.”

So where is this this “reliable wind”?

This graphic shows where the wind is reliable enough to generate electricity. The source I used is from a government web site that advocates wind power!  Note that for about 75% of the continental United States, the reliable wind source for power generation just does not exist!

So now you start to see the problem of where the reliable wind exists, as well as how to get the power to the nation. As you can clearly see from that chart, that is a very serious problem. When you look at the chart, you can also see why there were so many wind farms in upper Iowa (because that was a hot spot for reliable wind). But that is one of the very few spots at least “GOOD” on that map (and Iowa isn’t even “Excellent”).

So, let’s assume for a moment we do have that wind to generate that power. How much does it cost to build the power turbines versus the cost of the coal plants to operate? From their own “pro-wind” web site, the costs per KWH are:

Gas Turbine: 13.9¢
Coal: 4.5¢
Nuclear: 4.6¢
Wind: 7.5¢

Yes, wind is MORE expensive than coal! That is because it takes hundreds of wind turbines (with VERY high costs) to equal the power generated from one coal generated power plant!

But here is the little hidden secret that I have kept talking about. Even with having reliable wind power and those wind turbines, guess what? You still need a power plant up and running 24/7. So you still have that additional cost! (which they do not include in their “per kwh” cost of wind power!

“Since the grid or control area must be kept in balance at all times (supply and demand, frequency, voltage), some generating unit(s) must be immediately available at all times to provide backup service (or balance) for the electricity (if any) coming from the wind turbines. This means that the unit(s) providing the backup service may be operating in an automatic generation control mode, running at less than peak capacity, and/or running in spinning reserve mode.”

But when these whacko environmentalists talk about the cost of wind power, they always exclude that cost! They only want to talk about the cost of the wind turbines alone!

Ok, so now is the funny part. You will hear the pro-wind advocates keep using the phrase, “FREE, IT’S FREE! IT’S FREE” (sounding like Michael Moore in the movie “Sicko” talking about nationalized health care).

“How Expensive is Wind-Generated Electricity?

Once a wind-turbine is built and paid for, it generates electricity almost for free. Once your house is built and paid for, it provides housing almost for free. What really matters is the cost to society. With current subsidy methods, it costs around 3¢/kWh of subsidy to get wind turbines built.”

You see, that is the funny part. Oh, once we build it, it is free! Or, (as in the case of “free subsidies”) it is cheaper because it is subsidized….by our taxes!

—Uncle Curtis

Posted in Economy, Energy, Taxes | Leave a Comment »

Green Energy Might Be More Of An “Off” Green

Posted by TheJOTUS on July 3, 2010

Five myths about green energy:

1. Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of “energy sprawl,” including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn’t always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind’s unreliability. The result is minimal — or no — carbon dioxide reduction.

Denmark, the poster child for wind energy boosters, more than doubled its production of wind energy between 1999 and 2007. Yet data from Energinet.dk, the operator of Denmark’s natural gas and electricity grids, show that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines. Denmark has done a good job of keeping its overall carbon dioxide emissions flat, but that is in large part because of near-zero population growth and exorbitant energy taxes, not wind energy. And through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.

4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.

Nissan and Tesla are just two of the manufacturers that are increasing production of all-electric cars. But in the electric car’s century-long history, failure tailgates failure. In 1911, the New York Times declared that the electric car “has long been recognized as the ideal” because it “is cleaner and quieter” and “much more economical” than its gasoline-fueled cousins. But the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today.

Those who believe that Detroit unplugged the electric car are mistaken. Electric cars haven’t been sidelined by a cabal to sell internal combustion engines or a lack of political will, but by physics and math. Gasoline contains about 80 times as much energy, by weight, as the best lithium-ion battery. Sure, the electric motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but can we depend on batteries that are notoriously finicky, short-lived and take hours to recharge? Speaking of recharging, last June, the Government Accountability Office reported that about 40 percent of consumers do not have access to an outlet near their vehicle at home. The electric car is the next big thing — and it always will be.

More at the link.  Decent read.

Posted in Energy | Leave a Comment »

Obama/Democrats: Energy Independence Is Just A Campaign Slogan To Us

Posted by TheJOTUS on August 19, 2009

Remember during the campaign when Obama was trying to tout his assinine clean energy plan?  Or what about his insistance, then and now, on our cutting back on our use of fossil fuels?  As expected, it’s all bullshit:

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

One can’t highlight enough the absurdity of backing a Brazilian oil company for off shore drilling when the company is 1) not American and 2) Again, Obama’s vehement opposition to off shore drilling during his campaign.

Infact, it was him and his democratic allies in Congress who have cockblocked exploration of American oil fields off both shores for decades.  Obama insists by drilling off our own coast, we would only feed our addiction to oil.  Yet he has no trouble committing $2 Billion of our money for Brazil to drill off its own coast???

no zone 

Hey here’s an idea.  In an economy that is supposedly the worst in the history of man, where we are losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month, why not do this:  Let American companies do what Obama is paying Brazilian companies to do, *GASP* drill offshore.   We will in fact, make money while creating hundreds and hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs in the US, and thus strengthening the United States.

Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Energy | Leave a Comment »

Biggest Hitter For 2008? ExxonMobile

Posted by TheJOTUS on April 29, 2009

Yep, ExxonMobile topped the Fortune 500 for 2008:

……big hitter, the Lama – hits it long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga… gunga, gunga-galunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he’s gonna stiff me. And I say, “Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know.” And he says, “Oh, uh, there won’t be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.” So I got that goin’ for me, which is nice.”

Man I love that movie.  At any rate, back to XOM:  Roughly 45 billion in profits on 442 billion in revenue, or basically 10% if my trusty Abacus ain’t lying (It ain’t.  Although it is a shit load of beads).

Wal-Mart, with slightly tighter margins…ahem…, followed up with a 3% profit of 13.4 billion on 405 billion in revenue.  Slackers:

Chevron (8%)
ConocoPhillips ( -7 %, dude.  Who the hell is running this?)
GE (9%)
GM, Ford (Ouch)

Actually with roughly 55% (per gallon) going to refining, distributing and delivering costs, not to mention the crushing environmental regulations, that is a pretty fair margin.  Plus, keep in mind the crippling taxes as well (Although not allocated in the profits, it is still note worthy on the price per gallon).  You can read more of my thoughts on this here.

There is an old saying:  If you don’t like the price, stop buying the product.  That is how capitalism works. 

Close.  But in the case of gasoline, where you need the product whether you like it or not, you should be finding ways to buy less of it.  The price will revert to what the market will bear.

Posted in Energy, Taxes | 1 Comment »

Media Conveniently Quiet On Low Gas Prices

Posted by TheJOTUS on January 6, 2009

I know shocking, right?  Not really.  The Ron Burgundy’s of the world have moved on to something other doom and gloom to report on.  Like how global warming is killing the polar bears.  Or fawning over B. Hussein “stick figure” Obama’s shirtless, hat backwards wearing, wanna be gangsta vacation photos.  Real Presidential there Barry…but I digress…

Today The Washington Times reports gas prices, when adjusted for inflation, are actually lower now than when George W Bush took office:

Last week’s $1.59 – the average for a gallon of regular on Dec. 29, according to the Energy Information Administration – works out to $1.33 in 2001 dollars, or 9 percent less than it was the day Mr. Bush took office. The tumble in prices, from a high of more than $4.05 in early July, has meant incredible savings.

At gas prices’ peak in July, Americans were spending $1.6 billion a day at the gas pump. Mr. Townsend said that has tumbled $1 billion in five months, and at today’s prices drivers are spending about $600 million. For the average family that fills up once a week, that means paying $25 a week rather than $75.

John B. Townsend II, spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic, said the inflation comparison doesn’t mean much to consumers paying at the pump, but the drop in prices has put real money in consumers’ pockets.

Too bad this wasn’t happening at the end of October or the first week of November.  Just another example of how the ball bounced Obama’s way. 

But it’s true, gas right now is incredibly cheap.  It seems like we were paying $4 per gallon for the longest time.  At one time, it was about ninety bones to fill my truck up–per week.  Now it is less than $30.  A definite relief.

So I wonder if the same liberal Bush bashers blaming him for the high prices, are now going to issue apologies or perhaps give him praise for the lower prices we enjoy now?  Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was thinking the same thing I was:

“I wonder if the same people who blamed the president for the increase in prices will now credit him with the reduction in prices. It’s only fair,” said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

I am not holding my breath…

Posted in Energy, Media Bias | Leave a Comment »

The High Price Of Democrats

Posted by TheJOTUS on August 14, 2008

 

 

Indeed…

Posted in Energy | 1 Comment »

Obama The Mechanic

Posted by TheJOTUS on August 1, 2008

Yep, Barry is a mechanic.  No, don’t be silly, not that kind of mechanic.  Although his stance on abortion would suggest otherwise.  No folks, ol’ Barry is an auto mechanic.  Check out this polished turd:

“We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could save just as much.”

Emphasis by me.  Video here

I am really starting to question the validity of Harvard’s education system.  Really, I am.  You get this guy away from a scripted, rehearsed, laid-out-for-him tele-prompter and he is lost.  I mean a real deer in the headlights.   And for the love of God, stop saying “uhhh, uhhh, uhhh, ummm, ummm, ummm, uhhh.” 

By the way, Powerline absolutely destroys this absurd, ridiculous claim.  In a nutshell:

How does this stack up against “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling?”

ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels

So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.”

Eventually the media will stop protecting this guy.

Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Energy | Leave a Comment »

The Price Of Oil Keeps Dropping

Posted by TheJOTUS on July 24, 2008

Remember in my post last week how the price of oil in the futures market fell after the lifting of the Executive Ban on off-shore drilling?  Well if you forgot, you can click here to get up to speed.

A peculiar thing happened after the price fell two days in a row, totaling a 7% decline — it continued to fall all the way to today.

If you remember the jist of my post last week was the closing price of $134.60, which was an incredible drop of over $10 in just two trading sessions from the closing high of $145.18 the day before the President ended the off-shore ban.

Yesterday’s closing price for delivery of a barrel of oil in 90 days was $124.23.  Interesting side note: Oil prices passed the $120 mark on May 5, 2008.  So it took about 70 days for oil to go from $120 to $145, but only 7 days to go most of the way back to $120.

So, that’s a one week total decline of nearly $20, which is a 14% decline.  There was an article linked Drudge this morning that predicts $3.50 gas by Labor Day.  Marketwatch.Com suggests that:

…we could see a drop in gasoline prices by as much as .30 a gallon over the next three weeks as wholesalers and retailers battle to lure back drivers who have backed down their driving habits. 

This very well could be true.  There is no doubt people have been adjusting their driving habits over the last couple of months.  Here in the KC area, gas is right around the $3.75 range.  So combined with the futures market and current market, you could see gas around here close to the $3 range if not lower before the Labor Day weekend.  Now, wouldn’t that be fun?

Posted in Energy | Leave a Comment »

Drill Offshore=Drop In Oil Prices

Posted by TheJOTUS on July 18, 2008

B. Hussein Obama had a news conference today in Jacksonville, FL.  His main topic?  His vow he will preserve the federal ban on off-shore oil drilling. 

In his remarks, Barry says (By the way, the emphasis is on me):

“In what is becoming a bit of a regular occurrence in this campaign, Senator McCain once had a different position on offshore drilling,” Obama says. “And it’s clear why he did –- it would have long-term consequences for our coastlines but no short-term benefits since it would take ten years to get any oil.”

He goes on to say:

offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today. It would not lower gas prices this summer. It would not lower gas prices this year. In fact, President Bush’s own Energy Department says that we won’t see a drop of oil from this proposal until 2017. It will take a generation to reach full production. And even then, the effect on gas prices will be minimal at best.”

Let’s look at what was basically the immediate result of Bush’s lift on offshore drilling, shall we Barry? 

July 15, 2008: President Bush rescinds Executive Order banning offshore drilling.

Price of oil at close on July 14 — $145.18.

Price of oil at close on July 16 — $134.60.

Crude-oil futures tumbled $4.14 to $134.60 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, bringing the contract’s loss to $10.58 over the past two sessions – the biggest two-day drop in crude prices since January 1991. Crude has lost $10.58 over the last two sessions, the biggest two-day price drop since January, 1991. It’s now 8.6% lower than the $147.27 record high hit last Thursday. Earlier in the session, futures slumped $6.74 to an intraday low of $132, the lowest for a front-month contract since June 12.

So much for BO’s understanding of futures trading in commodities, huh?  Indeed.  There is no mistaking the fact that commodities markets price NEWS into their trading, not just the number of barrels that come out of the ground on any given day.

My favorite quote is “it would have long-term consequences for our coastlines but no short-term benefits since it would take ten years to get any oil.”  This is the same retarded liberal logic the Clinton Administration said…ahem…10 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!  And look where we are at.  Solutions, Barry, solutions.  Not sweeping it under the rug.

Posted in B. Hussein Obama, Energy | 1 Comment »

Indeed…

Posted by TheJOTUS on July 12, 2008

It’s nice the Republicans bring this out now.  Really, it is.  But this is something that should have been done years ago when THEY had control of both houses:

 

Posted in Energy, Jim's Gems (Click of the Day), Nuggets of Potpourri, Politically Speaking | Leave a Comment »