View Full Version : Energy Will Be Obama's Waterloo

03-04-2012, 02:15 AM
By William Tucker on 3.2.12 @ 6:09AM

And it will all be his doing -- blaming Bush won't cut it anymore.

When President Obama suggested last week that we might eventually be replacing oil with algae, Mark Whittington of Yahoo suggested that the President had reached his "lunar base moment." It was an apt analogy. Just as Newt Gingrich's musings about a moon colony finally made the public cock its head a little when listening to him, so the moment may have arrived when the environmentalism fantasies that inhabit the President's brain will finally be exposed to the light of day.

As things stand now, $5 gas may shift the entire focus of the election onto energy and what the Administration's faculty-lounge policies have been doing to America's industrial base. To the public, "clean, green energy" will no longer be a dreamy vision of windmills and solar collectors but the hard reality of spending $100 to fill your tank. There's one more thing as well. This will be the first issue in four years where President Obama won't be able to cast reflexive blame on George Bush.

The President began his term with an Inaugural Address promise that "We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories." He has kept that promise. Using the crowbar of the $1 trillion "stimulus," the Administration has shoehorned much of the country's energy investment into a Rube-Goldberg sector of the economy made up of the half-baked projects of armchair entrepreneurs plus the off-the-charts dreams of those wanting see the entire planet transformed into an environmental utopia.

Prompted by various federal and state government tax incentives plus market-obliterating "renewable mandates," hundreds of square miles of mountain and prairie have been covered with 45-story windmills that look like the archaeological remnants of a previous race of 80-foot giants. These "wind farms" generally produce electricity that is essentially useless. When the wind blows, windmills can force other forms of generation out of the market because they are free of fuel costs. But those other forms of generation have to be kept running just in case the wind dies down. Last year when temperatures rose to 110 degrees in Texas, that state's 7 percent "wind capacity" proved absolutely useless in the heat-induced doldrums.

And wind "farms," it should be noted, always talk in terms of "capacity" rather than output. That's because they only operate about 30 percent of the time. Nobody has yet invented a way to store commercial quantities of electricity and it may be impossible without building facilities of equally gargantuan dimensions -- say an entire city block of rechargeable batteries. Without any means of storage, wind power is essentially a nuisance.

Then there is solar electricity, which, in order to access, California is now planning to cover dozens of square miles of pristine desert (yes, there is already environmental opposition) in order to prove the world can run on sunshine. Solar energy is a bit more concentrated than wind so that it only takes about five square miles of highly polished collectors to produce 100 megawatts -- when the sun shines. In the desert environment, these solar panels will require constant cleaning and polishing to keep them from getting covered with dust and therefore becoming dysfunctional. It's a labor-intensive task that will require lots of water coming from who-knows-where.Read More>http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/02/will-energy-be-obamas-waterloo

03-04-2012, 02:40 AM
Read More>http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/02/will-energy-be-obamas-waterloo

Obama just made one of the stupidest, pie-in-the-sky pronouncements on energy that he could have possibly made, basically saying "Let them eat algae." Charles Krauthammer had a field day with it:

Krauthammer On Obama's Algae Policy: "I Think He's On To Something"

RELATED VIDEOS (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/) | expand (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/23/krauthammer_on_obamas_algae_policy_i_think_hes_on_ to_something.html)

Charles Krauthammer responds to President Obama's suggestion that the U.S. turn to algae (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/23/147_obama_if_we_could_make_energy_out_of_algae_wel l_be_alright.html) for energy production. After making his case, Krauthammer goes head-to-head with Washington Post columnist Charles Lane who defends Obama's energy policy.

"I was impressed by the president's analysis of this situation where we have no control over the global price of oil," Charles Krauthammer said. "We're dependent on oil from unfriendlies. And he says, as we heard, drilling for oil to relieve our dependency is not a solution, it's not a plan. He said we have to go to clean energy. He talks about something really revolutionary today. Algae. A $14 million grant for the development of algae. It's not oil. His solution is algae. And because we know that the Secretary of Energy is physicist that won the Nobel Prize, the president knowing this stuff said that one of the reasons we should do this is because we can grow algae here in the United States."

"Now, it happens that algae will grow on anywhere on earth. I looked it up while I was away for those three days. You thought I was sunning myself. I did research. It grows in oceans, in lakes and ponds, in your swimming pool when the pool man is on vacation. In snow, in ice, on soil, on turtles, on sloths, the bark of trees and rocks. Why are we drilling for oil? We are the Saudi Arabia of rocks. We have a mountain range called the Rockies and we are allowing ourselves to be dominated by these oil producers. I think he's on to something here that is truly revolutionary. Why would you build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline with real oil from Canada to put in real refineries and put in real existing cars when you can do algae? I think he is on to something. And I think this shows the vision, the hope and change he promised in 2008."

"Tongue out of cheek," host Bret Baier joked.

"I'm sorry that I brought the level of discussion so low," Krauthammer joked back.

Krauthammer then took Charles Lane to task after the opinion columnist tried to make the case that domestic energy creation has increased under Obama.

"Obama argues against oil because he's right, it's not going to happen overnight. But conservatives and Republicans have argued for 25 years to open up the Arctic. And what do Democrats argue in the '80s and the '90s and the last decade? 'Oh, it will take three years or five.' Well, that was quarter century ago and they blocked it every year. The Clinton administration stopped it every year. And still today, after a quarter of a century, 'Oh, it's not going to happen tomorrow.' Of course not. But there is a history here of reducing domestic production in the United Sates. And that's the reason we're in the hole we are," Krauthammer said.

"Well, Charles it is a fact that thanks to North Dakota domestic production of oil in the United States has risen in Obama's term. Maybe he didn't do anything to help it but while he was there it went up," Charles Lane said to Krauthammer in an attempt to size him up.

"But why deny the opportunity to double and triple that increase?" Krauthammer shot back.

"I don't know that there's a policy ready in hand to make it happen," Lane answered.

"How about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge? How about drilling on continental coast of the Atlantic or the Pacific? All these are shut down by the Democrats," Krauthammer reminded Lane.

"Well, look, there some Republican governors who have been around called Jeb Bush who weren't crazy about drilling off of Florida either," Lane said.

"Crazy or not, the regulations are made in Washington," Krauthammer said.

If the Republican nominee doesn't relentlessly ridicule him for this idiocy, then we deserve four more years if this clod.

03-04-2012, 02:45 AM
There may be hope for Republicans yet, there is a race to ultimate stupidity and as long as they do things like this we may have a chance.

03-04-2012, 05:05 AM
and rocks. Why are we drilling for oil? We are the Saudi Arabia of rocks. We have a mountain range called the RockiesOutstanding.

Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode:

"Why do they call it Ovaltine? The glass is round. The jar is round. They should call it Roundtine."
"That's gold Jerry."

03-06-2012, 01:00 AM