Comments


  • Observer,
    Another one of these wacky environmentalist theories is methane gas. They have made a claim that livestock is putting off to much methane gas and something should be done. But on the other hand just one of many large methane gas deposits is in the Bermuda triangle; it comes right up from the ocean floor and is in a natural state right from the earth. But they discount that for some reason or another who knows. Just some more facts.

    June 16, 2010 at 4:44 p.m.

  • Observer,
    Environmentalist has those leases held up in federal court, because of some damn bug or something along that line. Right now there is over 40 leases in federal court, because of these environmentalist, that is a fact.

    One thing I cannot understand for the life of me is why this country has the most fuel efficient none polluting vehicles in the world. The vehicles we drive today will run for over a 100,000 miles on a set of spark plugs and beyond. The left is so stupid when comes to technology, they do not understand R&D, we can make all types of fuel, but it takes millions of dollars in R&D to develop a fuel that is none pollutant fuel efficient and safe for ever day use. Then try and figure away to refine it, so it can be made cost effective to the public. We have fuels that are man made they are specialty fuels that are used in the racing and aircraft industry, the cost of these fuels are enormous just to make and use on a temporary basis. This idea that some one is going to turn on a light switch tomorrow and we have a new alternative fuel is totally ridiculous and plan stupid.

    June 16, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.

  • Why would any company be drilling for oil a mile beneath the Gulf when there are numerous areas in this country, both on land and in relatively shallow coastal waters, that have proven oil reserves, some in the billions of barrels? Any guesses?

    June 16, 2010 at 3:17 p.m.

  • Now if you would like to get from Hwy 59 and the loop over to Home Depot in a few seconds you could go with a mixture of 90% nitro methane and 10% methanol, but your engine would be fried, but ding what a ride it would be. Now that is some kind of fuel, it’s really not very safe and hard on parts. I bet you didn’t know you could use a cleaning solvent to go fast?

    June 16, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.

  • In order to use ethanol in its raw form it is very corrosive it has the same by –product as methanol/alcohol, so additives will be necessary, along with fuel delivery system will have to be changed. Which some of these engine modes have been made by auto makers since we are now using a very small percentage of ethanol in gasoline. It goes back to cost of making these fuels and having adequate resources.

    T Bone, and natural gas in big trucks is fine if you do a change from gas engines to natural gas, it will not work with diesel engines, because the cylinders fires based on compression, if natural gas was tried on a diesel there would be a hell of an explosion

    I like the hydrogen idea best of all, but it is limited in range. The great achievement would be to develop a complete self contained charging system for the battery driven system. This would be great for those battery/hydrogen cars made in California, but you still have to recharge the batteries.

    June 16, 2010 at noon

  • Alton
    Your analogy is about vehicles as you stated, but mine is about the cost of gasoline.

    I think Mr. Perry would need a Cray computer to calculate what the true cost of migration routes, automobile accidents, floods and lost oxygen but if you are trying to make a point that we can over think a situation; point taken.

    June 16, 2010 at 10:27 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    June 16, 2010 at 9:44 a.m.

  • Legion357

    I don't know anything about Mr. Perry and his group, but I knew it would not make any difference to those that say" Oh wait, keep going, we might save a penny or two on the outskirts of town." There's nothing that I say or do will make a difference, especially to those that are satisfied with status quo. I realize that.

    I read where the less fortunate would be taken care of with vouchers; whether it's Cap- and- Trade or a carbon tax... There's been talk that a carbon tax could replace the payroll tax... Industrial plants and transportation entities have also been taking into consideration. I don't believe anyone is going into this with a blind eye. Now, no one has any answers for a one sided hypothetical and yes there will be days, when we say," I wish we did we would have stayed on fossil fuels."

    You're thinking that I believe we should raise prices on everything to force a solution; not at all. I am for anything that gets the ball rolling, instead of kicking it down a road, generation after generation. I'm afraid we won't do anything until it's absolutely necessary and we won't get any benefits from it ,because we will paying high prices for the green energy other countries developed. There are two sides to that coin.

    I heard our largest oil producer say that Exxon Mobil does not have a plan for the worst case scenario and neither does anyone else drilling in our deep shores. It wasn't just a nonchalant comment; it was made at yesterday's congressional hearing. Their five response plans submitted by the executives of the five companies they were represented, were similar in style and content. They all mentioned ways of protecting the walrus in the Gulf of Mexico. This morning, I saw a comment in the advocate questioning the moratorium because they wanted cheaper gas.

    June 16, 2010 at 9:34 a.m.

  • I agree,arlewil, I have never been a proponent of ethanol,unless of course we lifted our trade embargo with Cuba and used sugar. Right now we're trying cellulosic ethanol,, which requires less water and fertilizer but the low density of supply is the problem because just to satisfy the Bay Area of California with switchgrass, it would take more agriculture land than California has.

    I understand that many people don't realize more coal fired energy will be used when the electric cars recharge,but California Edison reported in May of this year that,the first phase of their Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) was completed. When all phases are developed, TRTP will include a series of new and upgraded high-voltage transmission lines capable of integrating electricity from wind farms, solar and other generation resources to deliver 4,500 megawatts of power, enough for 3 million homes.

    http://www.superintel.com/info-tech/n...

    T. Boone Pickens has been trying to convince Congress, that the way to go is to convert the large trucks to natural gas, and convert the electric grid in the northeast to wind power.... Of course, he has a large stake in those Energy Resources.

    I heard a congressman say that we could make more use of barges and rail to move our goods.

    Bottom line,we have ideas;not all of them are bad.

    June 16, 2010 at 9:06 a.m.

  • Read very carefully, this quote is from the environmentalist “LEADER.”

    "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it..."
    --Al Gore, Vice President

    June 16, 2010 at 8:53 a.m.

  • Mike
    The advocates of electric cars and ethanol don't understand it takes much more energy (mmbtu's) to transform the energy then the end product (electricity & ethanol). This means an electric car produces more carbon than a gasoline vehicle and costs much more to operate. The ethanol requires more energy to produce than the end product, producing more carbon than gasoline and increases the price of the fuel. These are not solutions.

    June 16, 2010 at 7:32 a.m.

  • I think I will get into the candle business, I have a strange feeling candles will be in high demand. Horses want work feed will cost too much, high fuel cost to produce feed, environmentalist (EPA) will place too many restriction because of methane gas. Bicycles want work need oil for the bearings, so that’s out. Electric powered scooters/cars want work can’t afford the cost of power too charge the stupid things.

    I don’t know, maybe I’m being a little too realistic here, but after listen the Pres tonight I do believe he just pulled the plug. Although there is no mass production of any type of renewable energy or anything that looks promising anytime soon.

    Sometime in the future about or 40 years we will have to draw a parallel with fossil fuels and alternative energy. But to place such a burden on the American people at this point in time is simple not practical, from industry to the food on the dinning table the cost will be enormous if you can afford buy food.

    I just don’t think this Pres has the mathematical skills or his economist to figure out what it takes for 300million people to live and survive with out the use of “OIL.”

    We can’t go back to the whaling industry or the killing of seals for the “OIL”, that just want work, which would cause an all out war.

    These environmental geniuses that have been so stead fast on protesting along with the millions of dollars that are used, perhaps they need to put their money where there mouth is!!

    June 15, 2010 at 10:25 p.m.

  • Interesting blog, Looking at roads and vehicles as an analogy , I wonder.
    What are the true cost of road construction and vehicles-- If we factor in all the environmental cost due to destruction of wildlife migration routes, vehicles killing wildlife, vehicles killing humans, vehicles injuring people, roadways heating up the planet, floods caused by the destruction of grass lands, and lost oxygen production due to cutting down trees?
    Maybe we should go green and use bicycles.

    June 15, 2010 at 9:37 p.m.

  • Who knows if Mr. Perry is correct. The RFF is a interesting group of non-profit intellectuals that profess to know the truth about all manner of subjects.

    If the true cost of gasoline is $4.60 and of that, in Texas anyway, 39¢ is tax, why is the price $2.72.

    I seem to remember a few months ago, Mike, you advocated raising the Federal gasoline tax to bring gasoline to $4.00 a gallon, to fund alternative energy.

    Indeed, that might be the catalyst for alternative sources, but it would be a tax that burdens the less fortunate unfairly, they would spend a greater % of there income for transportation than better of individuals. The very people that cannot afford to go out and buy a new vehicle that gets better mileage, also a 100% increase in fuel prices will affect public transportation and commercial rail service.

    If you think that Amtrack, Union Pacific, KS or any other rail line will not raise prices due to a at least 100% increase in fuel costs your dreaming. Along with the railroads every local and interstate bus service and airline would be forced to increase fares.

    Great idea, make everything, be it a person or a consumer good more expensive to deliver to it's destination.

    That will help this booming economy we are experiencing.

    Yes we need to wean off fossil fuels, the key word wean, not tax everything to death to achieve that goal.

    June 15, 2010 at 6:28 p.m.