Energy Archives - Page 16 of 18 - Common Sense Evaluation

Amusing

Ponderisms

June 18, 2008 gags

Here is a list of other things to ponder if you’re tired of wondering why the greatest country in the world is dependant on dictators and people that hate us for our energy needs.

Can you cry under water?

How important does a person have to be before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered?

Why do you have to “put your two cents in”.. But it’s only a “penny for your thoughts”? Where’s that extra penny going to?

Once you’re in heaven, do you get stuck wearing the clothes you were buried in for eternity?

Why does a round pizza come in a square box?

What disease did cured ham actually have?

How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage?

Why is it that people say they “slept like a baby” when babies wake up like every two hours?

If a deaf person has to go to court, is it still called a hearing?

Why are you IN a movie, but you’re ON TV?

Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground?

Why do doctors leave the room while you change? They’re going to see you naked anyway.

Why is “bra” singular and “panties” plural?

Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible crisp, which no decent human being would eat?

If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a stupid song about him?

Can a hearse carrying a corpse drive in the carpool lane ?

If the professor on Gilligan’s Island can make a radio out of a coconut, why can’t he fix a hole in a boat?

Why does Goofy stand erect while Pluto remains on all fours? They’re both dogs!

If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all that ACME crap, why didn’t he just buy dinner?

If corn oil is made from corn, and vegetable oil is made from vegetables, what is baby oil made from?

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Do you know that the Alphabet song and Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star have the same tune?

Why did you just try singing the two songs above?

Why do they call it an asteroid when it’s outside the hemisphere, but call it a hemorrhoid when it’s in your butt?

Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog’s face, he gets mad at you, but when you take him for a car ride, he sticks his head out the window?

Amusing

Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month

June 18, 2008 gags

It would appear that Al Gore is hell-bent on making global warming a reality.

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month

In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.

Amusing

10 Energy Questions for the US Senate

May 29, 2008 gags

Rather than dealing with real solutions, politicians in Washington hold show hearings in hopes of distracting us from the fact that they are the problem. Every time we fill up our gas tanks, we must remember that Congress is to blame for our current dilemma and we must tell them that we are on to them.

Top 10 Energy Questions for the US Senate

1. Do you understand the fundamental economic principle of supply and demand for commodities pricing in the oil market?

2. Oil is a global commodity, bought and sold on the world market. Given that the nine largest private oil companies hold less than 5% of the entire world’s proven oil reserves, isn’t it more likely that the law of supply and demand is “manipulating” current prices than the five corporations represented at your witness table?

3. As a U.S. senator, you have control over oil production on U.S. federal government lands. Taxpayers own these lands and the energy that lies beneath them, but 97% of the federal OCS and 94% of onshore government lands are not being used. Are you willing to help increase the world’s supply of oil — and thus reduce the price of oil and gasoline — by allowing more U.S. energy to be produced from these lands?

4. The corporations represented at the hearing today produce roughly two million barrels of oil per day in America, for American consumers, with an American workforce. How many barrels of American oil, based on Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates, have each of you voted to produce?

5. How often have each of you voted against supplying American consumers with 10.4 billion barrels of oil from ANWR, 85 billion barrels of oil from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), and 2 trillion barrels of oil shale in the West?

6. For those of you who have voted to restrict American energy supplies, especially during periods of increased demand, how are your actions any different than those that you have frequently ascribed to OPEC?

7. The sum of the American resources noted in question five is 2.095 trillion barrels of oil. The total proven oil reserves in the entire world is 1.3 trillion barrels. Which number is bigger?

8. As the gap between supply and demand expands, oil prices increase, and oil company profits rise. What’s the best way for oil company executives to send the entire U.S. Congress a “thank you” note for keeping energy supplies down and corporate profits up?

9. At today’s prices, the United States is sending $1.5 billion overseas — per day — to import oil from foreign countries. Do you think it would be a good idea to spend at least a fraction of that sum producing oil here in the United States?

10. When was the last time you filled up your own gas tank?

Amusing

Congress Responsible For High Oil and Gas Prices

May 18, 2008 gags

I think the explanation for why the Democrats are always on the wrong side, choosing to keep oil in the ground and punish us with higher gas prices is finally coming to light.

The Truth about Oil in America is that we have over a trillion barrels. Why then would Democrats constantly be opposed to us using any of our own fossil fuel to lower prices here? There can only be one logical answer for this. The Democrats are being paid by OPEC leaders to stop development.

Let’s look at the facts. OPEC has money, a lot of money. OPEC and the Islamic Middle East really have only one thing the world wants and that’s oil. If we take away that oil revenue and allow the USA to become “energy independent”, or even not as needful or dependent on OPEC , then OPEC and the entire Islamic Middle East are in deep do-do.

So, the logical thing for OPEC to do is spread some of that oil-money around. Just buying them a little insurance, you know?

OPEC shrugs its shoulder at the fact that Americans pay $4 a gallon for gas. Why would they care? After all, it’s not like any one’s forcing American politicians to take this money.

Crude Mistake

Energy: With the price of oil spiking above $127 a barrel, the search for scapegoats has begun. Some point to the Saudis, OPEC’s No. 1 producer. Others blame the oil companies. We have a better candidate: Congress.

As President Bush traveled to Saudi Arabia to ask the House of Saud to open the oil spigots a bit wider, Congress showed once again how clueless it is when it comes to energy policy.

Underscoring its failure to grasp the nature of our current problems, the Senate Appropriations Committee on Friday refused to end its moratorium on oil shale development in Colorado.

“If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump,” Colorado’s senior senator, Republican Wayne Allard, said, “this is a vote that would make a difference in people’s lives.” He’s right.

But the shale proposal went down to defeat with Allard and 13 other Republican members in favor and 15 Democrats opposed. Once again, Democrats were on the wrong side, opting to keep oil in the ground and punish you with higher prices as a result.

This was no minor thing. Estimates put the amount of oil locked in shale in both Canada and the U.S. at more than 1 trillion barrels. Pulling out even a tenth of that would quadruple our current reserves.

This is the same Congress that refuses to allow drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which holds up to 20 billion barrels of crude, or offshore, where another 30 billion await.

Meanwhile, Brazil — which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio’s beaches — announced that it has leased 80% of the world’s deep-sea offshore oil rigs. In other words, Brazil unlike the U.S., isn’t dithering as prices soar. It’s drilling.

If you think Congress’ decision-making on energy couldn’t get any worse, think again. While Bush was in Riyadh urging the Saudis to pump more oil, congressional Democrats were busy undercutting him, threatening to halt arms sales to our Mideast ally.

It was a politically peevish move with consequences both for U.S. energy security and the balance of power. If we don’t sell arms to Saudi Arabia, Russia will. The result would be a loss of American leverage with the Saudis, who, like many, feel threatened by a nuclear Iran and the menace of al-Qaida.

At least Bush convinced the Saudis to boost output 300,000 barrels a day. That helps. But we still have to do more ourselves.

The U.S. uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day. But only 8 million come from our own sources. That leaves a 13-million-barrel-a-day deficit that, at $126 a barrel, will cost us $600 billion to plug this year. That’s more than two-thirds of our total trade deficit.

Congress could reduce much of our oil shortfall by drilling for more on our own territory. This would lower prices and increase security. Yet, Congress seems dead set on doing the opposite.

With its failure to tap the vast supplies in ANWR and offshore, its passage of costly global-warming legislation and now its refusal to exploit our massive resources of oil shale, Congress has set us on a path to less energy, higher prices and weakened national security.

Amusing

The Democrat’s Energy Plan: When Common Sense Is Not So Common

May 15, 2008 gags

So how is the Democrat’s “common sense” energy plan working? Well, as Charles Reichley points out in the six years before they took control, oil increased an average of about $5 a year. But in the 16 months the Democrats have been responsible for the nation’s energy policy, the price of oil has risen to $126. That is an increase of almost $70 a barrel or $5 each month.

He also notes that the energy bill is one of the few real “accomplishments” the Democrats have had since they took office. If $3.70 a gallon gas is an “accomplishment,” we can all hope they fail more. Their “success stories” are driving us all to the poor house.

Drilling for an energy plan

When President Bush took office in 2001, the price of oil was around $30 a barrel. Six years later the price had doubled. Democrats promised voters they had “a common sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.” On October 20, 2006, just before the Democrats took over Congress, a barrel of oil was about $57.

So, how is the Democrat’s “common sense plan” working? In the six years before they took control, oil increased an average of about $5 a year. But in the 16 months the Democrats have been responsible for the nation’s energy policy, the price of oil has risen to $126 — an increase of almost $70 a barrel or $5 each month.

If I had a choice, I’d take $5 a year over $5 a month. Meanwhile, gas prices on the Democrat’s watch went from $2.20 a gallon to $3.67, an increase of almost 10 cents a month. The Democrat’s plan isn’t working, unless their plan was to decrease our dependence on oil by making it so expensive we can’t afford to buy it.

It’s clear the Democrats are fumbling our energy policy. Last week Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged President Bush to get Saudi Arabia to drill more oil so prices would go down. But at the same time, she rejected drilling for domestic oil, claiming that increasing domestic supplies won’t lower the price we pay.

So which is it? Do we want more oil or not? How do we decrease our dependence on foreign oil if we reject domestic oil and increase foreign oil?

While claiming oil drilling won’t help, the Democrats said we should stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which will increase supplies by 70,000 barrels a day. They say this will decrease gas prices by up to 24 cents a gallon. Economists say the effect will be negligible.

Meanwhile, Democrats reject drilling in ANWR because they say adding a million barrels a day would only drop the oil prices about 5 cents a barrel. So 70 thousand barrels saves us 24 cents a gallon, while a million barrels won’t do a thing?

Also, Democrats want to raise taxes on oil companies. By increasing taxes, they promise the price of gasoline will drop, and the oil companies will increase supply. In reality, taxes decrease incentives to supply oil and raise the price we pay.

Of course, we are collecting a huge amount of taxes from the oil companies. The feds took over $30 billion from Exxon-Mobil last year (that’s more than the taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of all individuals).

The Democrats also say drilling in ANWR is useless because we won’t get any oil for 10 years. But they take credit for a bill they passed which will force Americans to buy more fuel-efficient cars. Their plan requires cars to get 35 miles per gallon, by 2020 — 13 years from now. So we shouldn’t drill in ANWR because it will take 10 years before it helps us, but increasing gas mileage over 13 years is “smart energy policy.”

Meanwhile, my car gets over 45 miles per gallon today — beating their standard for 13 years from now by 30 percent. Americans could buy these cars now, but haven’t. So the Democrats will force us to.
But it won’t help as much as they claim — when cars get more efficient, gas use will increase, because people will be able to afford to drive farther.

The one thing that will make us stop using oil, and switch to alternative fuels, is if gas gets so expensive we get tired of paying the cost. The Democrats claim they want us to stop using gasoline, but they are pushing the administration to force companies to lower gas prices, which will make people use more gas.

So the Democrats want to cut gas use, but are pushing lower prices. They say Bush let prices get too high, but since they took over the price has gone up ten times as fast. They say a million barrels a day won’t make a difference, but 70 thousand a day will. They won’t drill ANWR because it will take too long, but passed fuel efficiency standards that will take longer.

The energy bill is one of the few real “accomplishments” the Democrats have had since they took office. If $3.70 a gallon gas is an “accomplishment,” I hope they fail more. We can’t afford too many more “success stories.”