About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Place your bets: alternative energy vs. oil addiction...can anyone win?


Uh-oh, it’s back to the future time. Here we go again! President-elect Barack Obama has selected Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Chu, as his energy secretary (er...energy czar). Chu is director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leading advocate of reducing greenhouse gases by developing new energy sources.

 

And make careful note of that phrase..."developing new energy sources". (More on this later). 

 

The President-elect vowed to, "move beyond our oil addiction and create a new hybrid economy." The selection of Chu, a Chinese American who shared a Nobel Prize for physics in 1997, received widespread praise on Capitol Hill.

 

Obama was peacock-proud about the selection: "His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action," Obama said at a news conference in Chicago. "We must control our own destiny; America must develop new forms of energy and new ways of using it. And this is not a challenge for government alone; it's a challenge for all of us".

 

Umm hmm... once again, Obama used that ominous phrase..."develop new forms of energy".

 

And just what new forms of energy is he talking about? While Obama huffs and puffs about wind and solar, there's just one little teensey-weency fact that the science-challenged president elect hasn't mentioned: what about all the nearly 300 million vehicles currently residing in our nation’s driveways and garages, that are powered by internal combustion engines? Will we just trade 'em all in for the new-fangled hybrids of the future?

 

Last August, during his Denver convention speech, Obama was quoted: "As president, I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy; wind power and solar power and the next generation of bio-fuels..."

 

Thus, this brings up another vehicular conundrum--just drive by any large construction site today and witness the actual nuts and bolts of a growing economy. There will be nonstop activity: heavy trucks coming and going; cranes moving busily hoisting materials up and down; yellow front-loaders and Caterpillar bulldozers moving all about . And every worker in step, doing his own individual job as efficiently as possible.

 

So this begs the question, how could our country function without the heavy diesel vehicles that are vitally instrumental to a growing economy? Are they supposed to run on old french fry oil, which is basically how you derive biodiesel?

 

But Obama and his leftist, enviro-marxist democrats despise oil, and all its refined forms of energy, and want to tax all fossil fuels out of existence. They will permit no new drilling, and no new refineries. And what might occur if Obama has his way, and levies heavy consumer taxes on gasoline and diesel, to FORCE us into the green energy era? America must be aware of Obama's creeping socialism-- do we really want the government regulating us for everything, including what we shall drive?

 

Sales of elecric cars are plummeting in Europe. Why? Basically it’s the same reason that Americans are to find out the hard way when Obama interferes with the domestic auto market: Even in green-obsessed Europe, people still like powerful, sexy cars. 

 

Belgium is trying to force mandatory caps on European manufacturers of gasoline and diesel-powered cars, but is running into fierce opposition led by France and Germany. And not only are the ugly electric cars no fun and lack power, the bedeviling problem of their 40 mile range won't be solved until the battery can be replaced with some new breakthrough, which might not come in this century. 

 

How practical is it to talk about developing the new energy sources of the future? Ask the Chinese, who recently showed off a modern line of electric-powered buses that ran in an eight block area of Beijing to ferry passengers for the Olympics.

 

But hidden nearby in an off-limits area, there were 2 full time robots, operating to change all the dead batteries from buses that were drastically limited in their operating range.  Each high-tech swap took about eight minutes. But this could be the last charging station in China: the Chinese are now faced with the environmental problem of hundreds of non-recyclable dead battery clusters from the 'modern' buses, which now no longer operate in Beijing any more.

.

High costs, coupled with a lack of clear policy support from the central government, could limit China's one-time use of battery powered buses, trucks and cars to the Olympic weeks. Meanwhile, the country is struggling to plot a future course for an alternative vehicle industry.

 

So far, China's car buyers have shown little interest in alternative vehicles. Only 414 shoppers last year bought the only hybrid car available on the Chinese market. Feng Fei, deputy director in China for the Industrial Economy Department at the State's Development Research Center, revealed that China's alternative auto industry is in disarray. He blames a lack of clear plans for development.

 

Basically, whether you examine Europe or Asia, its the same chicken vs.egg conundrum:  does it pay to create a market that's virtually non existent for alternative energy vehicles? Or do you wait for the demand, and then take on the engineering costs to develop them? And China has 6 times more engineers than the U.S.; yet they, like the Europeans, remain 'oil-addicted.'

 

Thus, given the econo-scientific reality of all these false hopes, picture the enviro-Obamian economy after 4 years: People shunning the green cars of the future...gas lines winding around the block...men pushing cars toward gas pumps...drivers anxiously leaning out their windows looking ahead...white bags covering the nozzles...violent arguements about "next in  line"... worried driver facial expressions-- civil disorder as people suffer across America-- all waiting for the magical appearance of the "alternative energy sources of the future".

 

And magical is no exaggeration! The Democrats are the know-nothing party when it comes to the hard scientific hurdles that delay the onset of alternative energy. Mass produced electric and hydrogen cars are decades away. They remain prohibitively expensive. The battery and fuel-cell reliability problems have yet to be solved; and only hybrid vehicles with gasoline assist are practical now, yet remain expensive and unpopular. 

 

We cannot replace oil and coal, with solar or wind anytime soon. Just ask any engineer; (preferably, a republican) if you want to get the real story: We are at least fifty years from seeing alternative energy being mass produced; and right now alternatives account for just 1.5% of America's total energy BTU's produced. But coal is at 60%.

 

Obama is either dreaming or misleading. If we all understood physics a little better, we'd know you cannot take money away from drilling, and then use it to INVENT a new alternative type of energy. Once again, ask any engineer in America, or Europe, or in China.

 

Was coal invented? Oil? Nuclear? Electricity? How about the great invention of the wind?

The last great energy "breakthrough" was 160 years ago, when Drake struck oil in Pennsylvania. Ask Isaac Newton..."energy cannot be created or destroyed"...it's Newton's first law of physics. And Obama probably thinks physics is an old remedy sold at the drugstore for people who can't properly 'go'.

 

Obama might not be cognizant of it, but his "damn the fossil fuels-save the environment" energy policy will destroy economic growth, jeopardize our military security, and ruin our economy. Bulldozers and all heavy vehicles run on diesel. There will never be an all-electric freight train, or fuel cell airliner this century; nor any wind powered tanks or solar-driven fighter jets.

 

So will Obama's "jolly green-environment" spike gas prices to $6 a gallon in the next four years? The only people who would benefit would be the bicycle shops --the rest would suffer. This no-growth policy will prolong the recession, give OPEC more leverage, and put us on the road toward becoming the world's most advanced third world country. 

 

And to where will all this government environmental extremism take us? Since when did we lose faith in our free markets? They've worked for 235 years to make America great. And now, Obama and his liberal do-gooders, have decided to throw it all aside, and claim more government development of alternative energy is the answer to a problem that doesn't even exist.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oh my stars...it's the Czars! Will they be the new fat-cats on Capitol Hill?


Welcome everyone, to the new Camelot on Capitol Hill-- the czarist dynasty of Barack Obama! After 210 years of presidential succession (via something called the Constitution), we've had an orderly process of power transfer. But now in the new Obamian order of holy rule, we are about to be inundated by czars. Bow down everyone...break out the jeweled crowns and golden goblets, here come the czars...they're b-a-a-a-a-ck!
 
William Simon was the original American czar. At the height of the Arab oil embargo in December 1973, Nixon selected Mr. Simon as head of the Federal Energy Office.

Yup, it was actually a republican's idea that initiated the czarist thing. Energy was a sacrosanct topic back then, because the Arab oil crisis had caused gas lines, and the doubling of gas prices, which caused inflation to rocket upward. OPEC was public enemy #1.
 
As energy czar, Simon instituted a mandatory fuel allocation program, and he was able to stem the rising public hysteria about possible gasoline rationing until the embargo was lifted in spring of '74.

But other than subduing the rationing thing, as far as jaw-boning OPEC to mitigate oil prices, Simon proved to be simple simon, and accomplished little else. So the U.S. czarist dynasty of D.C. died out prematurely due to lack of a successor.
 
But the czarist revival was not long in coming. The next was Wild Bill Bennett, named drug czar by Bush (the first) in 1988. At that  time the war on drugs had hit a crescendo: the word "crack" had become an intimate part of our lexicon. There were "crack" mothers who'd given birth to "crack babies". There was crack cocaine, crack houses, crack dealers, crack law enforcement officers, and even crackdogs, (it was the dawn of the "driveway" pit bull). The whole evening news was one big crack war...one story after another .
 
But like William Simon a decade before, wild Bill Bennet proved to be mild bill, and was ineffective in doing anything about crack; so he was morphed into a talk show host, and faded into the A M airwaves
 
However, the czars were sure to return again someday, because the word had become ingrained into our culture. Everyone likes the sound of 'czar'. It has that subliminal aura of power behind it, like if you put a czar up against a king in a toughman contest, the czar would kick grass, and leave the king prostrate in the ring.
 
And wouldn't the game of chess be more enhanced if a czar could be placed on the back row of the chessboard? (i.e. my czar takes your queen, check!). Maybe now they'll modernize the rules of chess, realizing they forgot something; and maybe supplant the wimpy bishops with the intimidating czars now lurking back there. They might even do it pretty soon because it stands to reason that a bishop vs.a czar would be no contest. Plus the anti-religious liberals in congress would support it.

Or how about football? What if it was the Czars vs. the Raiders! A sell-out, standing room only game, no doubt, would be the result.

But too many czars can spoil the effect. Mr. Obama and the leftist congress seem to be developing fatal cases of czarmania,  and are set to go canaries appointing new czars.

There may be senate filibusters; and they'll probably be burning the midnight oil (er, midnight hydrogen) thinking of new czar-compatible federal agencies, because by now, they're obviously aware that secretary and czar are worlds apart in wielding political clout. After all, wouldn't some big-oil CEO feel more intimated if the "energy czar" was on the phone, rather than some lily-sounding "secretary of energy"? And besides, the word 'secretary' implies the glass ceiling, and that’s being anti-feminist.
 
So bombs away! Let the new czars of the federal government step forward! There will be the bailout czar... the infrastructure czar...the superstructure czar...the car czar, and the job creation czar.  Barack says (on his website)..."got a new program or idea for a federal agency in mind? Well then-- have we got a czar for you!"

Barack campaigned on the promise that he would build the economy from the bottom up. So should we look for him to name the Community Organization czar? The Homeless czar... the Salvation Army czar, and czar for ethical treatment of animals? (i.e. the animal czar).

But one thing they keep forgetting about--the word "czar" is chauvinist. Female czars, by virtue of the name, are an oxymoron. But back in Russia they were addressed as "czarina". But this raises another concern; it takes all the power out of the word 'czar'--and thus defeats the original purpose-- because czarina sounds just as lily as "secretary".  A coal company executive would probably chuckle if his assistant buzzed him with, "the environmental czarina is on line #3."
 
But even more disturbing is the consideration that with all these czars and czarinas on Capitol Hill, what if they decided to form a union, so they could define their power base...then what? What if one czar proved to be czar-challenged, and needed to be fired? But then, if all the other czars threatened to strike, could  the country then be faced with a constitutional crisis? Would Barack be forced to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act to force all the czars-czarinas back to work?
 
Back in the early 80's Reagan canned all the striking air-traffic controllers, and let 'em know who's boss. But would Obama have the presidential moxie to fire all the striking czars, and force replacement czars across the picket lines? Everyone will just have to be all pins and needles, waiting and hoping that such a crisis never comes to pass. But in the meantime, look for a new czar appearing in your neighborhood soon.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »