This is scary stuff. You need permission from the Global Warming zealots in California to start a business.
Attorney General Jerry Brown on Tuesday said he will sue to block a proposed water-bottling operation in Northern California unless its effects on global warming are evaluated. (LINK)
Starting a new business is an expensive and risky venture. California just made it more expensive and risky.
Who gave the attorney general the oversight on what types of business can get started. If it is within his power to do this, then that power needs to be removed.
Because of enviornmental restriction, building restriction, taxes and energy problems, business is already leary of California. This is not going to help.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Free Markets on July 30th, 2008
The Democrats like to feel good about themselves. They have tortured us with feel good legislation for years. Just today, they showed how much they care by voting to apologize for slavery (LINK). What they should have apologized for was years of driving people into a the welfare cycle with nanny state handouts. Slavery ended over 100 years ago. We are still living with problems created by “The Great Society”.
Soon a whole group of feel-good liberals will meet for their convention. They have and will continue to make useless gestures designed to make them feel good about themselves. Their plan is to offset the carbon created to power the Democratic Convention with carbon credits. The DNC has purchased credits from Native Energy that runs a nearby windmill.
There is a slight problem. The only production from the windmill is the cash it creates from carbon credits. It creates no power. (LINK) The impeller spins some days, but it is a show so that local residents feel good about it their windmill.
In a way, this windmill is a reflection of the Democratic party. It was built with good intentions, but all it really does is spin its wheel, getting nothing done while raking in money.
I took my son to see “Dark Knight” yesterday. I have liked most of the Batman movies with the exception of the George Clooney era. Believe it or not, it has nothing to do with his politics.
The success of Batman has depended on the villain. “Dark Knight” does not disappoint. Heath Ledger did a great job as the Joker. He was completely crazy without the over-the-top wackiness of the Jack Nicholson depiction.
There were many post 9/11 themes in this movie. The main theme was obviously good versus evil. The not-so-obvious theme was that good often gets a bad rap. As Americans, we feel his pain. In a chaotic world, the United States uses wealth and power to protect the defenseless from tyrants and bullies. In return, the rest of the world resents us.
The Joker can not be reasoned with. He is impervious to moral arguments and is not driven by greed. He gets off on the power of destruction and fear. Appeasing him solves nothing. In the face of such evil, Batman is confronted with a scenario where he could have killed the Joker and opts not to. Hopefully, a US Soldier will need to make this decision with Bin Laden some day.
Batman uses illegal surveillance to search for the Joker. This raises question about both the power of technology to invade our privacy and the ethics of using that power for a good cause. I am guessing Bruce Wayne is not a big supporter of the ACLU.
It was a good movie, but it was long. The “medium” soda my son drank proved to much for his pre-teen bladder. He ran from his seat to the bathroom. It was the shortest bathroom trip of his life. That is an indicator of his review.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Uncategorized on July 29th, 2008
As the insomnia curing Olympics approach, there has been a lot of interest in the air quality (or lack thereof) in Beijing, China. It’s bad. It is real bad. Over at HotAir.Com, Ed Morrissey has a reminder of air issues for the 1984 Olympics and personal experience dating back to the 60′s.
Just to be clear here (no pun intended), what the Chinese are doing is far worse than what we did to the air back in the 60′s. At the time, there were no technologies for cleaning the air. The United States took a strong stand against smog in the 70′s and then developed technologies to solve the problem.
Compare that to this anecdotal reference.
I met an engineer this spring who sells equipment in China. He loves China. It is a great business opportunity for him and he is amazed with the culture…good and bad. He told me that he was sent to a power plant to help them with replacement parts. Without getting into too much detail, these parts were part of the pollution control components at a coal fired plant. When he got to the plant, the parts that he saw had never been used. They did not even know how to use the equipment.
The Chinese have recently shown a desire to use their pollution control equipment. You have to wonder why. Is it to look good to the international community or to clean up their polluted environment.
The Chinese have a history from the United States that they could learn from. They have technologies that we have developed and sold to them. They just don’t use it. It cost money to run the equipment.
The next time someone tells you that capitalism won’t work because it is based on greed, remind them of the pollution in China. Capitalism corrected air quality in the United States and offered it to communists, who rejected it.
I have said for years that Democrats want to change Social Security to welfare. Barack Obama has proposed a change that would move us even closer to that end. From his web site,
Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. (LINK)
Social security was created to be government imposed safety net. It was designed for people who would not save for their senior years. It has always been a horrible retirement plan, but it kept some people from being dirt poor as they aged.
When you consider that Barack Obama wants to remove the limits that some people pay into the system and relieve the obligation from others, this plan changes Social Security from a safety net to a massive redistribution of wealth.
How is this plan not welfare?
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on July 26th, 2008
I was e-mailed a summary of proposed presidential tax policies (LINK). For those who think it does not matter who gets elected…that Democrats and Republicans are all the same…think again.
Leon Lett will forever be remembered as the guy who started his touchdown celebration too early. He had the ball knocked from his outstretched hand before he made it into the end zone. The ball rolled through the end zone for a touchback.
Fast Forward to today. According to the Atlantic, Barack Obama’s team is already working on his presidential transition (LINK). Doesn’t this guy know that Americans love the underdog? We all laughed when Leon Lett fumbled the ball and turned to each other to say, “DId you see that? Let that be a lesson”
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on July 25th, 2008
John McCain has admitted that he is not an expert on the economy, but he gets this one right. Today Senator McCain gave a speech about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (LINK). Because of the backing of the federal government, these companies were able to grow without competition. Now that we have a mortgage crisis at hand, the government has declare that they are too big to fail. Isn’t that special?
Senator McCain believes as I do that they must be saved, but the government should have never let it get to this situation.
I support taking the unfortunate but necessary steps needed to keep the financial troubles at these two companies from further squeezing American families. But let us not forget that the threat that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to financial markets is a tribute to crony capitalism that reflects the power of the Washington establishment.
He then proceeds to the proper solution
If elected, I’ll continue my crusade for the right reform of the institutions: making them go away. I will get real regulation that limits their ability to borrow, shrinks their size until they are no longer a threat to our economy, and privatizes and eliminates their links to the government.
I would split them up, but shrinking them works just fine for me too.
Just wondering: Where does Barack Obama stand on this issue considering Jim Johnson, who used to run Fannie Mae, was at one time the head of the vice president search committee. Maybe if he wasn’t talking to Germans as a world citizen, we could find out what he thinks about our issues.
The multicultral, one-worlder Barack Obama is just finishing his German campaign stop at a Nazi monument (LINK) where a majority of Germans prefer Barack Obama to John McCain. There is one caveat. When weighted for “likely voters”, polls show the race even…0% to 0%.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on July 24th, 2008
I saw this outrage on Glenn Beck’s CNN program tonight and then read it on Michelle Malkin’s blog (LINK). Apparently, the Democratic big-wigs are getting their gas in Denver tax free. They are saving 40 cents per gallon. This is the same party that told us a tax holiday for gasoline was a bad idea. It’s a bad idea because it puts money in your hands without it going through the Washington redistribution chain.
The whole idea of a party getting special favors reminds me of the Soviet Union. The Communist party bosses were given nice apartments and cars, while the little people waited in line for toilet paper.
Or
Communist Cuba where they have two health care systems…one nice one for the Communist Party members portrayed in Michael Moore’s Sicko “documentary” and the horrible one that most of the people are dying to get away from.
The response to this outrage from the Democrats:
The committee hosting the Democratic National Convention has used the city’s gas pumps to fill up and apparently avoided paying state and federal fuel taxes.
Well, that would piss me off too,
But Teresa McFarland, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul host committee, said its members are getting their gas at public pumps.
The Culture of Corruption has no political bias
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Election on July 23rd, 2008
Some conservatives are questioning T.Bone Picken plan (Michelle Malkin, Paul Driessen). I had not looked at his plan until today. I pretty much rejected it immediately because I figured a geologist in the natural gas business really doesn’t understand the electric power business.
I have now read through his online plan (LINK) and find that not only does he not understand electric power…he doesn’t even understand free market economics. On his “What’s the plan” page, he says
Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn’t enough of it to keep up with demand.
Mr. Pickens is either failing to recognize or refusing to acknowledge that the increase in oil prices brings a whole host of new technologies into the market. There are oil sands, shale oil and coal gasification. The resources for these technologies are abundant. Although they are relatively expensive compared to oil selling at $20 a barrel, these sources are now viable with oil is $130 per barrel.
When the supply of oil was manipulated in the 70′s, consumers adjusted their demands by investing in efficiency. Thirty years ago OPEC reduced their output in order to raise prices thinking that they could make more money. Americans reacted by investing in efficiency solutions. People insulated their homes. Windows were replaced. Appliances were upgraded. These investments might not have happened without the oil crisis. Once purchased, these energy saving investments were then part of our lives. Insulation was not torn down after the price of oil returned to pre-crisis levels.
Today’s problem is not just a supply problem. It is a demand problem. China and India are soaking up more and more fuel. This is not likely to change anytime soon. The implication of this is that our current situation is a long term problem. There is no group of oil men plotting to make the price high, and therefore the price is not being set by the whims of men. It is set by supply and demand.
Business can now make long term investment knowing that the price of oil is likely to stay high for quite some time. Turning oil sands into fuel is economically viable at $60 per barrel. It is no longer a question of weather business can make money converting the oil sands to fuel. The current limitation is the number of skilled workers available to increase production. Other technologies that require large capital expenditure to get started like shale oil and coal gasification can now proceed with a higher level of confidence that they will make money for years to come.
Once these investments are made, they will not be abandoned. Although I am generally for government staying out of business, they have a roll to play here. Since energy independence is a national security issue, government can assure business that they will have a customer even if oil drops below pre-determined price. Filling our strategic reserves could be used to increase the demand for domestically produced energy sources. This does not need to be an open ended commitment, just a commitment long enough to allow business to cover capital expenditures. In such a case, it will seem like an expensive deal to buy fuel at and inflated price, but it is significantly cheaper than building nearly half a million wind mills and redesigning the national electric grid.
Harnessing the power of the wind is undependable, expensive and can not be stored. Investing trillions of dollars in a dubious wind plan seems extremely risky considering there are better solutions at hand. T. Bone has initiated a PR stunt because his plan is not economically viable. The only way to proceed with such a plan is to have tax dollars diverted to such a cause.
I would prefer to see government make a small, time-limited commitment and then get out of the way.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Free Markets on July 23rd, 2008
Super Arrogant
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
photoshopped on July 23rd, 2008
There were two items online today that support what I have considered to be a major contributor to the housing market problems. Democrats got involved in banking decision. Denying a loan became political.
Creating a system with banking rules based on race would never have been acceptable. In order to make it easier for minorities to get loans, the banking system were given incentives to loans easier to get by everyone. The sub-prime loan was created in order to make it easier for minorities to get loans.
A rising tide lift all boats, but too much water will kill you.
Thomas Sowell (LINK) writes about how politicians looking for votes changed the approval process:
It was not that many years ago when there was moral outrage ringing throughout the media because lenders were reluctant to lend in certain neighborhoods and because banks did not approve mortgage loan applications from blacks as often as they approved mortgage loan applications from whites.
All this was an opening salvo in a campaign to get Congress to pass laws forcing lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend to and in places where they would not otherwise put their money.
And then a statistic posted at Christian Science Monitor (hat tip to Michelle Malkin) tells who was the beneficiary of those laws.
And minorities received a hefty share of those loans. Just over half of African-Americans and 4 in 10 Hispanics who got a mortgage in 2006 had a subprime loan, according to a 2007 analysis by the Center for Responsible Lending. (LINK)
Easy loans led to over building. We now have excess surplus in the housing market. It may take years to fill the available housing in some regions. Meanwhile, the financial system is in turmoil and we may be headed for a deep recession. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Democrats will accept no responsibility and place ALL of the blame on President Bush.
In my opinion, the housing crisis is a direct result of Congressional action. This is what happens when you let emotion and empathy be your only guide. The old communist slogan, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” may be reworded today in liberal spin, but it is as destructive today as it was during the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
Posted by: The Elephant Owner in
Free Markets on July 22nd, 2008
Keep in mind the grilling George Bush got at a press conference where he was pushed by reported to say what his biggest mistake. President Bush refused to answer the question because he knew it would be used as a political tool against him. Because he refused to admit any mistakes in a press conference, Bush was portrayed by the media as stubborn and arrogant.
Fast forward to now. “The Surge” has worked and even the press admits it. Barack Obame said that “The Surge” would not work and would make matters worse. Will he now admit he was wrong?
Here is the transcript of the shocking interview of Barack Obama by ABC’s Terry Moran (link):
TM: If you had to do it over again knowing what you know now.
BO:No, because keep in mind
TM: You Wouldn’t
BO: stuttering…these hypotheticals are very difficult. Hind sight is 20-20. But I think that..What I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because view of the Bush administration is one that I just disagree with.
What he is saying is that “The Surge” worked in Iraq, but I oppose it now and would not repeat it even though it has been successful. He would however surge troops into Afghanistan…even though Al-Queda is in Pakistan.
It is more important to Barack Obama to defeat George Bush than it is to defeat Al-Queda in Iraq. It’s ALL about politics with this guy. What would a President Obama do without a George Bush policy to be against?
I see it all the time. The media tells you how much power a wind turbine can output and to put it in terms of how much power it is, they tell you how many homes it can supply. This clarification is no clarification at all. What a house consumes depends on so many things…like what time of year is it and what is the weather. In the summer, a home will consume more electric power to run air conditioners. Some homes are in areas that don’t need much air conditioning (like at the beach or further north) and some regions are more likely to use electric power to heat homes in the winter.
The real way to determine the power output of a wind turbine is to look at the name plate rating…and then multiply by 30%. A large windmill may produce as much as 1 megawatt in ideal conditions. Over time it is more likely to produce about 300 kilowatts. Compare that to a large steam turbine that can produce 750 megawatts all the time. It would take 2,500 1-megawatt windmills to replace one large generator driven by a steam turbine.
What is even worse is when a windmill is likely to be under rated. The wind slows in the summer, so wind turbines produce less power when demand is the greatest. This is a big problem. To replace a large steam turbine during the peak consumption (summer), you would need over 3,000 windmills. As you can imagine, the maintenance budget for 3,000 windmills is far greater than for one steam turbine.
The power companies don’t have big batteries somewhere storing electric power. When you turn a light on, generators around the region have a harder time turning. This extra effort starts to slow down the generator. In response, generating stations increase the input into their systems in order to keep the generators spinning at the same speed.
Electricity is generated on demand.
There are two types of generators; base load generators and peak generators. The base load generators are used all the time. They run at their peak efficiency points and are rarely adjusted. The peak generators are always on, but are brought up to speed and introduced to the electricity grid during peak electric usage.
Base load generators run near peak efficiency points. Peak generators run over a wide range and therefore usually are not running at peak efficiency.
Wind mills are operated when the wind is available…not when electricity is demanded by customers. Therefore, fewer traditional generators run as base load generators. Instead they run as the less efficient peak generators. This shifts the cost from the windmill to the traditional generators…but it is a cost that must be absorbed by customers regardless.
These are not arguments against building windmills. These are just basic facts that most advocates of windmills do not consider.
Older Posts »
Share on Facebook