Congressional Dems like spoiled children turn the lights off and go home. - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 08:35 PM Thread Starter
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Both are doing amazingly well. Go do some real research. Thin film solar panels are starting to be installed on buildings to provide virtually ALL their infrastructure power. Tracking solar is working, many wells and remote site utilities are 100% solar.

Fuel cells have moved from EV1 production to where you will see pure electric cars ON THE ROAD within 24 months [that's just 12 years and with less funding than hoped]. Hybrids are starting to pop everywhere. Caddy is releasing three this fall, Mercedes is not expected to even have a straight ICE car within 5 years.

It does work both ways. We put folks on the moon in 8 years. We can do this in that time frame.
Do you realize how enviornmentally damaging current hybrids are? You would be better served to drive a hummer if you care about the environment than a toyota prius. Lets look at how toxic the batteries are. Lets look at how much energy is used in producing the batteries. Lets look at how much energy is used in shipping the batteries, and it goes on, and on, and on.

Lets look at how much land is consumed to produce solar energy. How about the fact that there is the little problem of solar not working when the sun is down. Hmmm I use electicity at night how about you.

Solar can work ok on a small scale it is not working well on a big scale. Before you pull out the large solar farms I will trump you with "efficient" combined cycle natural gas plants, or nuke plants.

But solar is really off subject as it does not get your car from point A to point B.

I am not sure what the point of potentially having a fuel cell car on the road in the near future (like we have not heard that for years) has to do with drilling for oil.

You like to make these argument mutually exclusive and they are not. You can drill for oil and invest elsewhere.

Drill here, Drill now.
430 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 08:40 PM Thread Starter
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
It does work both ways. We put folks on the moon in 8 years. We can do this in that time frame.
Hell at least putting people on the moon was worth while (or at least would have been if we had not abandoned it). Let the fucking private enterprises worry about getting a fuel cell or another technology out. Why am I wasting tax dollars to subsidize research so joe six-pack can live in the fucking suburbs and drive 50 miles to work and 50 miles back and not bitch about paying $3+ a gallon.
430 is offline  
post #23 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 08:41 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,506
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
If you have read my [entirely too many] posts on the subject, you will see that I am not opposed to drilling OCS or ANWR on any other reasons besides economic.

The cost effectiveness of the projects, based on the time and resources required and the Return on Investment, both in monies and AMOUNT of oil produced does not make sense.

If the yield were to be more than a 7-12 year supply [assuming the optimistic projections of our politicians who are sponsoring this issue] the numbers would change but there is nothing to indicate there is anything more than what is optimistically projected.

So what we have is a 7-10 year development runup for an amount of oil that has a lifespan of 7-12 years after it finally starts pumping. So we don't see ANY benefit until 2014-2015 and ALL benefit is gone after 2028 or so.

It seems to me, just based on a pure systems approach, that investing all that time and energy to grab a finite amount of oil could be put to better use if it were focused on new technologies. The folks at Shell and BP seem to agree with that and have already started putting their money into those new technologies.

THEY will be getting the patents, THEY will be driving the new technology and we will be stuck in the Tar Pits if we go backwards instead of forward. This is pure economics and systems logic, it has nothing to do with which political party is sponsoring it.
While your motives may be pure, this has, indeed, been held captive to petty partisan politics for no good reason. And, despite the fact that technology continues to advance, there is no assurance of a timetable. I'll have to find my link to Newt's short, medium, and long term strategy video, but not hedging against the possibility/probability that technology won't advance to produce a viable/economical alternative is just plain dumb. That hedge can continue to be buying oil from people who don't like us, I guess, but that seems dumb as well.

edfreeman is offline  
post #24 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 08:44 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman View Post
On December 15, 2005 Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, attached an Arctic Refuge drilling amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill. A group of Democratic Senators led a successful filibuster of the bill on December 21, and the language was subsequently removed.[10]
If the bill was so important, why was it attached to the Defense Appropriations bill at the last minute, without discussion or even committee consideration?

After reading the article, we have to look again at the influencing charges against Sen Stevens as they seem to dovetail nicely with this effort.



Senate blocks oil drilling push for Arctic refuge
GOP leaders hoping to override filibuster on defense spending bill fall 4 votes short

Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, December 22, 2005
(12-22) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The Senate rejected an effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling Wednesday after lawmakers balked at a controversial move to pass drilling as part of a popular defense spending bill that pays for the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina relief.

Republican leaders failed to rally the 60 votes needed to override a filibuster, falling four votes short. The vote was a defeat for the White House and GOP leaders, who have failed for a fifth consecutive year to boost domestic energy supplies by opening the refuge on Alaska's north coast.

"It was wrong at the eleventh hour to try to attach this energy and environment measure to a bill whose sole purpose is to provide funding for the American military at a time of war," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who helped lead the filibuster.

The fierce fight over drilling capped a day of drama in the Senate -- starting with Vice President Dick Cheney's vote to break a 50-50 tie on a budget bill that cuts $40 billion in federal spending, and ending with an agreement to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act for six months.

The vote on the Arctic refuge was also a personal defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican who has been crusading for the last 25 years to open the refuge to oil development. Stevens pushed the strategy of tying drilling to the defense spending bill, hoping to put lawmakers who oppose drilling in the tough position of casting a vote against funding for U.S. troops in combat.

But many senators, including some Republicans, chafed at the tactic. Democrats accused Stevens of holding the $453 billion defense appropriations bill hostage to the drilling plan.

"He thought he could force people to vote for it -- and it didn't work," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said after the vote. "It really offended people that he would attach this to the defense appropriations bill. It wasn't the right thing to do, and it really struck a chord with people."

Stevens' effort ultimately failed on a 56-to-44 vote. Three Democrats -- Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Sens. Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka of Hawaii -- joined Republicans in trying defeat to the filibuster. But two Republicans -- Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio -- sided with Democrats in upholding the filibuster.

Senate leaders agreed late Wednesday night to pass the defense spending bill without opening the refuge. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., told reporters that drilling had to be stripped in order to save a bill that also provides $29 billion in hurricane relief.

"We have to go on," Lott said.

The vote Wednesday afternoon followed a raucous debate over America's energy future and over the sanctity of the Senate's long-standing rules.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, said drilling in the refuge could ease America's dependence on foreign oil by tapping what U.S. geologists believe to be America's largest untapped onshore oil field.

"What ANWR represents to this country is energy security and national security," Murkowski said.

But Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who made opposition to drilling a centerpiece of his presidential campaign last year, said the United States has just 3 percent of the world's oil reserves but consumes roughly one-quarter of the world's oil supply.

"On its face, drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge doesn't help solve America's drilling problem. We are overly dependent," Kerry said.

Democrats accused Stevens of violating Rule 28, which bars lawmakers from adding items to a bill during conference committee that have not been passed in either the House or Senate. The drilling provision had not been included in either the House or Senate defense spending bill.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the Senate's oldest member at age 88 and a stickler for the rules, took issue with the efforts of his friend Stevens, who at age 82 is the second-oldest member of the Senate and the president pro tempore.

"I abhor this idea. Shame!" Byrd told Stevens. "I love him, I love my friend from Alaska, but I cannot go down that road. ... If permitted today, the process could be utilized again and again and again with terrible consequences for the Senate rules."

Stevens denied violating the Senate rules and accused his critics of attacking him personally for trying to pass a measure that would benefit his home state.

"We know this Arctic," he told his opponents in a sharply worded speech. "You don't know the Arctic at all."

Republican leaders had predicted this year would offer them the best chance in decades to pass drilling in the refuge. After last year's election, the Senate added four new pro-drilling Republicans who were expected to tip the balance.

But the effort faced tougher-than-expected opposition in the House, where about two dozen moderate Republicans succeeded last month in stripping drilling from a budget bill. The drilling provision ultimately passed the House as part of the defense spending bill in a pre-dawn vote Monday.

Senate Republicans expressed frustration after Wednesday's vote that the party has been unable to overcome the Democrats' ability to filibuster.

"I'm very disappointed that the will of the majority of the Senate has been thwarted again," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

Democrats say they expect to see the issue of drilling in the refuge back again next year.

"There is strong resistance to ANWR year after year," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the Senate's No. 2 ranking Democrat. "I don't think Sen. Stevens will ever stop working on it, but we made clear that they will have to pass it in regular order."

Senate blocks oil drilling push for Arctic refuge / GOP leaders hoping to override filibuster on defense spending bill fall 4 votes short

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #25 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 08:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 430 View Post
Do you realize how enviornmentally damaging current hybrids are? You would be better served to drive a hummer if you care about the environment than a toyota prius. Lets look at how toxic the batteries are. Lets look at how much energy is used in producing the batteries. Lets look at how much energy is used in shipping the batteries, and it goes on, and on, and on.
This is just too easy.

Just go out and read the debunking files on this little Internet red herring brought to you by the folks who hate Al Gore.

Quote:
Lets look at how much land is consumed to produce solar energy. How about the fact that there is the little problem of solar not working when the sun is down. Hmmm I use electicity at night how about you.
There is this little thing called the battery which you knew about just one paragraph above. And panels usually work on roofs and sides of buildings and acreage that can be multi-tasked.

Quote:
Solar can work ok on a small scale it is not working well on a big scale. Before you pull out the large solar farms I will trump you with "efficient" combined cycle natural gas plants, or nuke plants.
Do you use a hammer for every task you do?

Quote:
But solar is really off subject as it does not get your car from point A to point B.
You might want to check into how electric cars are being CHARGED with the new technology. Hint. Read your quote.

Quote:
I am not sure what the point of potentially having a fuel cell car on the road in the near future (like we have not heard that for years) has to do with drilling for oil.
How about not having to drill as much?

Quote:
You like to make these argument mutually exclusive and they are not. You can drill for oil and invest elsewhere.

Drill here, Drill now.
Yes you can, but you can drill for oil NOW without spending time or money on new fields and use all that investment capital on new technologies for a long term set of solutions.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #26 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 09:05 PM Thread Starter
430
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Vehicle: SLK32, ML430
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,349
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
^^^

You do realize that batteries are expensive, very enviormentally damaging, degarde over time, and are not suitable for large, long term storage right?

How does opening up areas for drilling cost prevent or reduce the money available for research into alternative energy? It is not uncle sam drilling for oil. Exxon is not going to say hmmm....I can't drill for oil in anwar so that $3B I was going to spend there is now going to be spent on solar.

Show me a mainstream, affordable, DOT approved, electric car that meats a majority of the publics needs and can recharge off the available solar infrastructure. Oh, wait that is right there isn't one. Who is going to pay for all of this? Who is going to clean up the damage created by all the heavy metals and toxins in the batteries?

How about dirlling as much as we can now with a plan to move from a fosil fuel economy in XX number of years.

Acerage that can be multitasked...Yes because I often see corn and soybeans growing under solar panels.
430 is offline  
post #27 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 09:07 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,506
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
If the bill was so important, why was it attached to the Defense Appropriations bill at the last minute, without discussion or even committee consideration?

After reading the article, we have to look again at the influencing charges against Sen Stevens as they seem to dovetail nicely with this effort.
I thought that would amuse you, after the Stevens thread . . .

But, in reality, the minority party can prevent up or down votes on things they find distasteful, such as this, so your assertion that the GOP could have passed this is incorrect. I read links about the 2002 energy bill, which was going to be the first overhaul in energy policy in over 10 years. Wonder what happened during that previous administration? (GOP did pass ANWR drilling, vetoed by WJC).
IMHO, we need to do it all . . . continue to innovate, drill and develop our own oil reserves as a hedge against this market, build FTL's sea of nuclear units, develop the matter/anti-matter warp engines that Captain Kirk had in the 60's. The problem with energy legislation is that nobody wants to do what the other party wants to do when quite a bit of it makes sense.
Just plain dumb.

edfreeman is offline  
post #28 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 09:09 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by edfreeman View Post
While your motives may be pure, this has, indeed, been held captive to petty partisan politics for no good reason. And, despite the fact that technology continues to advance, there is no assurance of a timetable. I'll have to find my link to Newt's short, medium, and long term strategy video, but not hedging against the possibility/probability that technology won't advance to produce a viable/economical alternative is just plain dumb. That hedge can continue to be buying oil from people who don't like us, I guess, but that seems dumb as well.
Trick is, there are no assurances of timetables the OCS or ANWR either. We only get about 25% of our oil from folks who we don't like. So it is not like it is a 100% or 0% game. As the technologies come online, the bar moves daily. Hell, I am watching supply and demand numbers go down monthly. With 9 Billion fewer miles driven in June, we used half a billion gallons less gasoline in June than previously. As folks move to smaller cars that 17mpg average will improve and the monthly use will continue to fall.

So with the combination of fewer personal trucks/suvs, more efficient cars, smaller/lighter cars, higher prices for gas which makes folks think about their driving habits, and an increase in commuter options, we are already on the road to solid reductions, new technologies will just enhance that continued path.

I am not at all worried that we will "miss a timetable" as it is a fluid slipstreamed schedule, with incremental changes that enhance the improvements as they progress.

I am more concerned if we start a "drill here" program that redirects resources from New Technologies and makes folks forget that OIL is a finite resource and we still have to address the New Technologies. With some folks, once you give them a bite to eat, they forget they were without food and didn't know how/where to get it. They have a full belly and are content.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #29 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 09:09 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 430 View Post
Does anyone realize that if we had started drilling in Anwar when first proposed that oil would be online now?

The idea is to use this added supply as a bridge not a long term solution.
The real problem with short term solutions or any events that lower the price of fuel temporarily is that they deflect the public's and Congress' attention from our national need for an energy policy other than cheap gas so people can drive 50 miles to work and back every day. So, if ANWR and off shore drilling were tied to a funded energy policy that got the US off Middle East oil before the ANWR and off shore oil was used up it might have a reason to be allowed. But to merely speed up the day when we have to buy all our oil from the ME or other nations who fund terrorists who want to kill us is a bad use of that strategic oil deposit. I am for paying for ME oil and using it first. Use it all, then use ours. It is a strategically important natural resource. And we have no energy policy. No band aids. And now ANWR and offshore are band aids as they have been proposed, band aids that carry with them an environmental liability that alone should force us to come up with a good reason to drill there. And finally, someone, please explain how this oil is going to lower gas prices. That should be a fundamental feature of the debate.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #30 of 39 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 09:18 PM
Moderately subtle
 
edfreeman's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2003
Vehicle: 94 E500, 97 500SL
Location: Soddy Daisy, TN
Posts: 8,506
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Send a message via AIM to edfreeman
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
The real problem with short term solutions or any events that lower the price of fuel temporarily is that they deflect the public's and Congress' attention from our national need for an energy policy other than cheap gas so people can drive 50 miles to work and back every day. So, if ANWR and off shore drilling were tied to a funded energy policy that got the US off Middle East oil before the ANWR and off shore oil was used up it might have a reason to be allowed. But to merely speed up the day when we have to buy all our oil from the ME or other nations who fund terrorists who want to kill us is a bad use of that strategic oil deposit. I am for paying for ME oil and using it first. Use it all, then use ours. It is a strategically important natural resource. And we have no energy policy. No band aids. And now ANWR and offshore are band aids as they have been proposed, band aids that carry with them an environmental liability that alone should force us to come up with a good reason to drill there. And finally, someone, please explain how this oil is going to lower gas prices. That should be a fundamental feature of the debate.

Jim
Forget today's gas prices, in bold is what should be done. Any energy plan must include a better hedge against this market than we have today (ie - none) and continued development of technology. Neither party has a monopoly on inattention in this particular arena, and, you're right, just as soon as the oil bubble pops for a bit, it won't be an issue with either party. The GOP wants to develop oil resources, the Dems do not. The Dems want more green power, the GOP does not. The GOP wants nuclear plants, the Dems do not. If you glue together what everyone wants to do and eliminate what they don't want to do, you'd have a pretty good foundation for an energy bill.
Just plain dumb.

edfreeman is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Problem with Turn Lights and Beacons Lights! meshawa W123 E,CE,D,CD,TD,TE Class 3 08-19-2007 02:41 PM
    turn the key and dash lights turn on, no power to starter bob richards General Mercedes-Benz 4 01-13-2006 08:48 AM
    Are we a spoiled society? Shane Off-Topic 5 09-16-2005 10:33 AM
    Head lights turn on for 10 secs after locking doors. How do I turn this feature off? supersel W140 S-Class 1 02-04-2005 02:45 AM
    What were you spoiled with on father's day? Daniel W163 M-Class 10 06-16-2003 09:02 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome