Gomez deal looking good

Don't forget the oil shales in ND and Colorado.
Plus our abundance of coal....

Opps-Dems say we can't use that energy also.

Call me Misty wrote:

Don't forget the oil shales in ND and Colorado.
Plus our abundance of coal....
Opps-Dems say we can't use that energy also.

Actually clean-burning coal...trapping the carbon emissions from burnt coal before they go up into the atmosphere...is probably our best available short-term energy solution. The question is would the clean-burning part be something that energy companies simply comply with on their own or would the clean-burning part have to be mandated? I suspect it would have to be mandated.

johns6797 wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually clean-burning coal...trapping the carbon emissions from burnt coal before they go up into the atmosphere...is probably our best available short-term energy solution. The question is would the clean-burning part be something that energy companies simply comply with on their own or would the clean-burning part have to be mandated? I suspect it would have to be mandated.

There we go again-more gov't regulation.

John - St Paul wrote:

<quoted text>
You can check for this kind of data. It's available at the State of MN wed site if you look in the Public Safety area. Read it a month ago or so, but it's there. You can read, can't you?

I wasn't responding to his data, I was responding to his being able to "know" who these drivers were that were in violation. I can read, maybe you should re-read what I said and notice the quotation marks around his statement. That's what I was referring to. "You can read can't you?"

Former Ranger wrote:

David Matthews I agree we need an energy policy but your ideas cannot work. We can never have enough wind and solar power to meet out needs. Never
1. Increase exploration for oil.
2. Additional refineries to meet the increased demand for gasoline.
3. Additional nuclear power.

Not enough sun?? Not enough wind?

Oh, yeah, that's right; see, everyday, the sun goes away and it doesn't tell us where it's going!!

The wind? It never blows here...ever!

Sen Amy K wrote:

Could a windmill power my SUV?

If course it could! You could have a plug-in electric car, and the power plant could be wind-powered. I understand that we don't have the infrastructure for it nor is it financially feasible at this time, but I'm hearing gas prices may be $7 by 2012 so anything could be financially possible by then.

Call me Misty wrote:

Don't forget the oil shales in ND and Colorado.
Plus our abundance of coal....
Opps-Dems say we can't use that energy also.

Please show me a link that Dems say we can't use this energy. Thanks!

johns6797 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not enough sun?? Not enough wind?
Oh, yeah, that's right; see, everyday, the sun goes away and it doesn't tell us where it's going!!
The wind? It never blows here...ever!

*grinning*

I can appreciate folks saying that it's not financially feasible to go to these power sources, but we will when it becomes more lucrative.

We may have more sources of oil, but they too aren't financially feasible at this time to go after them. US has peaked. Most country's oil supplies have peaked except the middle east.

Factnuts wrote:

Demand for energy is rising around the world, according to the U.S. Department of Energy and the International Energy Administration. Data show global demand for oil and natural gas will likely grow 45% by 2030 compared with 2006. The Department of Interior estimates there are 112 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil beneath U.S. federal lands and coastal waters. That’s enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years, when you take into account the average yield of gasoline from a barrel of crude oil and the average number of gallons of gasoline consumed annually by a passenger vehicle.

Don't we use/need oil for more than just fueling cars?
It's funny to hear of gas prices hitting another record (or barrels of crude oil hitting a record). The concept is lost on me, I hear it so often.
$4 a gallon, I'll most likely sell my car. I can afford the gas price increases, but I live close to work, to stores, etc. I'll bike, bus, walk, and I'll join the Hour Car program.

John - St Paul wrote:

<quoted text>
Ha, dwindling? We have about 5-6 times the oil left in the U.S. alone than we have used in our entire history as a nation. It's not about the cost-benefit, ROI or any other accounting terms you care to use. It's about regulations, the extremist eco-lobby, trading votes for America's future and the Dems ARE driving it with some 'sold out' Repubs jumping on-board. It's also about controlling our behavior to conform to the beliefs of these America haters. The next thing you'll probably write about is 'global warming, right? Please, there isn't any.

Please show a source for these facts. If it were true, I wouldn't have imagine that production would have peaked in the 70's. Also, please show that this amount is financially feasible to obtain. Thanks!

David Matthews, what we really need is an HONEST debate on energy. Most of the world runs on oil. China and India realize that but here in the US we think we can simply trade oil for Solar and Wind Power, that is economic suicide! We need oil for more then gasoline.

There are serious problems with Solar and Wind, a big problem is the difficulty in storing this energy. You can buy 100% of your energy from Solar and Wind but that doesn’t mean all your energy really comes from those sources. The electric grid diversifies its sources depending on conditions and demand. If it’s a cloudy calm day, your electric energy is probably coming from anyone of our coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. Renewable sources of energy are fine but they are so limited for our needs.

We have electric cars, bikes and scooters right NOW! These all have a very limited range and practicality so until that problem is solved not many people will replace their current cars and trucks for them.

OPEC and the Oil companies LOVE environmentalist, as long oil production is limited, they can pretty much charge what ever price they want. OPEC had been trying to this by themselves for years.

Heres a really sickening letter to the editor

Not that kind of help

"It's been several days since a cyclone struck Myanmar. The military junta is being criticized for its slow response to the victims' plight. Now there's an offer of help from "Oh, was there a hurricane in New Orleans?" Bush. My guess is the military junta is worried that if it accepts help from this government, it will screw up their country, also. "
David Arnold, Maplewood

How can someone play politics with victims of a disaster like its some sort of joke? President Bush, the UN and many other countries are only trying to help these poor people who truly need anyones help and we have people making snide jokes about it.

Disgusting I say, shame on the Pioneer Press for printing this garbage.

Mellers wrote:

<quoted text>
Please show me a link that Dems say we can't use this energy. Thanks!

Read the DFL, environmentalist, teamster playbook.

Sen Amy K wrote:

<quoted text>
Read the DFL, environmentalist, teamster playbook.

If you're going to spout opinions as facts I figured the least you could do is back them up with sources. I'm not surprised that all you could do was attack me. You proved my point.

WJH wrote:

Heres a really sickening letter to the editor
Not that kind of help
"It's been several days since a cyclone struck Myanmar. The military junta is being criticized for its slow response to the victims' plight. Now there's an offer of help from "Oh, was there a hurricane in New Orleans?" Bush. My guess is the military junta is worried that if it accepts help from this government, it will screw up their country, also. "
David Arnold, Maplewood
How can someone play politics with victims of a disaster like its some sort of joke? President Bush, the UN and many other countries are only trying to help these poor people who truly need anyones help and we have people making snide jokes about it.
Disgusting I say, shame on the Pioneer Press for printing this garbage.

I agree with you WJH I too see alot of crap in the letters to the editor that makes me wonder, what were they thinking to print that. However, editorially speaking the "Pioneer Depressed," and "Grandpa Sid's Sandbox" across the river, are trying to at least, make it look like their being open-minded, and dont want to be accused of censorship. If you believe that, I've got some land just south of New Orleans that...

WJH wrote:

David Matthews, what we really need is an HONEST debate on energy. Most of the world runs on oil. China and India realize that but here in the US we think we can simply trade oil for Solar and Wind Power, that is economic suicide! We need oil for more then gasoline.
There are serious problems with Solar and Wind, a big problem is the difficulty in storing this energy. You can buy 100% of your energy from Solar and Wind but that doesn’t mean all your energy really comes from those sources. The electric grid diversifies its sources depending on conditions and demand. If it’s a cloudy calm day, your electric energy is probably coming from anyone of our coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. Renewable sources of energy are fine but they are so limited for our needs.
We have electric cars, bikes and scooters right NOW! These all have a very limited range and practicality so until that problem is solved not many people will replace their current cars and trucks for them.
OPEC and the Oil companies LOVE environmentalist, as long oil production is limited, they can pretty much charge what ever price they want. OPEC had been trying to this by themselves for years.

You are correct that serious debate has to be made about energy. The energy problem is like the cure for cancer. Most people think we need to find the ONE cure. When in reality, energy like cancer cures, must be tailored to your needs. And it will take a lot of effort to refine the total solution.

There is a place for oil, coal, wind, solar, geo-thermal, et al. We must support efforts to develop those technologies. We must understand each comes with a price. Meaning you have to pay for it.

The unfortunate problem we face with energy is not technical but social. We already have observed polarizing political groups using "environmental issues" to stop progress on almost all fronts.

The other issue, people are starting to view energy as a right such as health care, food, housing and transportation. In the not too distant past, you were expected to earn those things. Now by virtue of their presence, these people think they deserve free...energy, health care, food, housing and transportation (which is bull$). These technologies will not progress if the inventors and businesses cannot get a fair price for their efforts. They might even become.......RICH.

WJH wrote:

Heres a really sickening letter to the editor
Not that kind of help
"It's been several days since a cyclone struck Myanmar. The military junta is being criticized for its slow response to the victims' plight. Now there's an offer of help from "Oh, was there a hurricane in New Orleans?" Bush. My guess is the military junta is worried that if it accepts help from this government, it will screw up their country, also. "
David Arnold, Maplewood
How can someone play politics with victims of a disaster like its some sort of joke? President Bush, the UN and many other countries are only trying to help these poor people who truly need anyones help and we have people making snide jokes about it.
Disgusting I say, shame on the Pioneer Press for printing this garbage.

I understand your frustration. In cases like this I wonder if the public is better off being protected from knowing their are people in this world who think like that or are we better of knowing first hand that these types of people exist. I don't advocate being a cynic but there are good reasons for exercising caution in trusting unknown sources. Forewarned is forearmed.

johns6797 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not enough sun?? Not enough wind?
Oh, yeah, that's right; see, everyday, the sun goes away and it doesn't tell us where it's going!!
The wind? It never blows here...ever!

I don't know what the demand for energy is in the USA and I don't know how much energy solar panels and windmills are able to produce. Is it possible that there just isn't enough landspace to hold all the solar panels and windmills necessary to satisfy the demand?

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know what the demand for energy is in the USA and I don't know how much energy solar panels and windmills are able to produce. Is it possible that there just isn't enough landspace to hold all the solar panels and windmills necessary to satisfy the demand?

According to Dr. Michael Oppenheimer; Ph.D., professor, Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University the US could meet or exceed its current need for electricity with a solar field 100 square miles in area located in the Mojave Desert. That is with the technology that exists right now.

Also keep in mind that is the entire country. If you factor in that California's population is roughly 10% of the total population of the US, California could power itself with a field of solar panels about 10-12 square miles in area in an area that is mostly uninhabitable. States like Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Florida and the rest of the Sun Belt theoretically could provide electric power exclusively with solar. Those of us who live in less sun-drenched climates could augment solar power with wind power and probably also with some of the existing power generating facilities, many of which are now fired by clean burning natural gas, which emits only water vapor.

In terms of solar power, I guess I would have to ask what's the hold up?

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/toohot/index...

johns6797 wrote:

<quoted text>
According to Dr. Michael Oppenheimer; Ph.D., professor, Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University the US could meet or exceed its current need for electricity with a solar field 100 square miles in area located in the Mojave Desert. That is with the technology that exists right now.
Also keep in mind that is the entire country. If you factor in that California's population is roughly 10% of the total population of the US, California could power itself with a field of solar panels about 10-12 square miles in area in an area that is mostly uninhabitable. States like Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, Florida and the rest of the Sun Belt theoretically could provide electric power exclusively with solar. Those of us who live in less sun-drenched climates could augment solar power with wind power and probably also with some of the existing power generating facilities, many of which are now fired by clean burning natural gas, which emits only water vapor.
In terms of solar power, I guess I would have to ask what's the hold up?
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/toohot/index...

Can excess daytime solor energy be stored for use at night?