The Neofascist environmental nutjobs are in a panic seeing this new source of energy that has a huge reserve of more than a 100 years, and it's clean burning and 'fracking' recovery method has more than 60 years of history to prove it is safe. The enviro sees their wind mills and solar panels threatened.
Of course this won't stop the enviro-nutjobs from 'creating' news that reeks havoc with local communities about leakage into water supplies. Past history means nothing to the hysterical enviro, the only thing they are concerned about is getting control of every one's lives and forcing their personal agenda down our collective throats.
The scariest part of all this is a lot of politicians buy into this nonsense, even in the face of facts that show the enviros to be lying.
The War on Natural Gas
Source: Paul Chesser and Mark Newgent, "The Great Frack Attack: The War on Natural Gas," Commonwealth Foundation, July 2011.
Politicians, activists and lobbyists have pushed for new taxes and fees on natural gas drillers and even an outright ban on all natural gas in Pennsylvania. Their obstruction of the industry's growth efforts has also consisted of a public relations campaign to distort the reality of the industry and spread myths about drilling activities, say Paul Chesser, executive director, and Mark Newgent, a research fellow, at the American Tradition Institute.
Heinz Endowments -- Grants totaling more than $680,000 for the study of gas drilling "impacts," outreach, organizing, legal issues and oversight have been given to universities and nonprofits. International WOW -- The company created a film called "Gasland," which shows a distorted picture of the connection between natural gas and methane in water wells. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission even issued a fact sheet that corrected errors in the documentary.
National Groups Feeding Pennsylvania Affiliates -- Grants made by wealthy donors to anti-oil and gas nonprofits have been a key part of the obstructionist effort against gas drilling.
Local Activism Tries to Thwart Development -- Certain local groups have focused their efforts around specific areas, while insisting on drilling moratoriums and additional "impact studies."
PennFuture -- Otherwise known as Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, this organization has been hypocritical in their accusations of natural gas companies for their lobbying and political campaign expenditures. For years they did not disclose to the Internal Revenue Service their lobbying and grassroots activities on behalf of the alternative energy industry.
Despite what the critics of the industry claim, natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania is not a danger to the environment. The hydraulic fracturing process is much safer than they have suggested and has helped create jobs, access natural resources and keep energy prices down.
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Education Voucher Program Forcing Public Schools to Reform
Interesting! Public schools actually do take notice of the Voucher Program when their very existence is threatened. Maybe the Voucher Program will have a two pronged benefit in that public schools will work harder to keep kids from leaving and vouchers will help chronic problems schools reform or shut down.
In either case, the taxpayers and the kids will gain from the Voucher Program. And maybe, just maybe, even a third benefit will be the NEA losing some it's influence on education, a real plus.
The Impact of Ohio's Voucher Program on Public School Performance
Source: Matthew Carr, "The Impact of Ohio's EdChoice on Traditional Public School Performance," Cato Journal, Summer 2011.
In 2005 Ohio's legislature enacted the Educational Choice Scholarship program (EdChoice), which provides vouchers to students in chronically underperforming schools, allowing them to attend private and religious schools.
Matthew Carr, a research fellow in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, evaluates the effects of the EdChoice voucher program on the academic performance of traditional public schools.
Specifically, he investigates how exposure to the threat of losing students to the voucher program affected standardized test performance in traditional public schools.
The largest gains among the traditional public schools were observed in the highest and lowest categories of test performance. One hypothesis is that threatened schools chose to focus most heavily on their highest and lowest performers, even though this led to little noticeable change to their overall proficiency passage rates.
Voucher-threatened schools may be placing their focus on those students most likely to use the program to exit their residentially assigned school, those in the tails of the performance distribution.
Like other studies on this subject, an interesting, and perhaps important, relationship has been discovered between the implementation of a failing schools voucher program and subsequent changes in the performance of traditional public schools. Finding answers to questions about the specific ways in which teachers, students and administrators may have changed their behavior in response to a voucher threat or stigma, and about potential differential effects based on any number of contextual factors, is the next step for research on this subject, says Carr.
In either case, the taxpayers and the kids will gain from the Voucher Program. And maybe, just maybe, even a third benefit will be the NEA losing some it's influence on education, a real plus.
The Impact of Ohio's Voucher Program on Public School Performance
Source: Matthew Carr, "The Impact of Ohio's EdChoice on Traditional Public School Performance," Cato Journal, Summer 2011.
In 2005 Ohio's legislature enacted the Educational Choice Scholarship program (EdChoice), which provides vouchers to students in chronically underperforming schools, allowing them to attend private and religious schools.
Matthew Carr, a research fellow in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, evaluates the effects of the EdChoice voucher program on the academic performance of traditional public schools.
Specifically, he investigates how exposure to the threat of losing students to the voucher program affected standardized test performance in traditional public schools.
The largest gains among the traditional public schools were observed in the highest and lowest categories of test performance. One hypothesis is that threatened schools chose to focus most heavily on their highest and lowest performers, even though this led to little noticeable change to their overall proficiency passage rates.
Voucher-threatened schools may be placing their focus on those students most likely to use the program to exit their residentially assigned school, those in the tails of the performance distribution.
Like other studies on this subject, an interesting, and perhaps important, relationship has been discovered between the implementation of a failing schools voucher program and subsequent changes in the performance of traditional public schools. Finding answers to questions about the specific ways in which teachers, students and administrators may have changed their behavior in response to a voucher threat or stigma, and about potential differential effects based on any number of contextual factors, is the next step for research on this subject, says Carr.
Monday, August 08, 2011
Government Debt and Deficits : SPEND LESS!
With all the problems that we are having in this country with our finances, debt and deficits, one would actually think that the majority of the population would have some idea about budgeting when times are bad. But this is not necessarily true.
Far too many people still harbor the false notion government will always find a way to solve a problem for us. All we have to do trust them. It always worked before, why not now?
Things change! Today is different then yesterday and tomorrow will look nothing like today. To be able to change with the times we actually have to take an active role in the process. We can no longer sit on the side lines while others make decisions that effect us all directly.
Ultimately, we make the final decisions that will make our lives better or worse when we vote. As long as we have the vote, and there those that think we aren't capable of voting responsibly, we all should make every effort to fulfill that obligation to our selves and our off spring by being informed as to what is going on in our country and who will change things for the better.
To do this, we must have good information based on past histories of the candidates and the incumbent, some idea about money and the effects of not having enough of it on our lives and why, then weight the facts as we know them. Be open all sources of information to make decisions, otherwise we run the risks of biased and managed information.
Never forget we are the responsibly parties in this debate. In the end, it all comes down to us to decide our own fate. Elections have consequences as we know only to well from 2008.
The Facts about Spending Cuts, the Debt and Gross Domestic Product
Source: Veronique de Rugy, "The Facts about Spending Cuts, the Debt and the GDP," Reason Magazine, July 29, 2011.
Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, discusses the facts and myths surrounding spending cuts, the debt and gross domestic product (GDP).
Myth 1: You cannot reduce the deficit to an appropriate level without also raising taxes.
Fact 1: Spending cuts are the most effective way to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Harvard's Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna examined 107 efforts to reduce the debt in 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations between 1970 and 2007; their findings suggest that tax cuts are more expansionary than spending increases in the cases of a fiscal stimulus. Also, they found that spending cuts are a more effective way to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Myth 2: Lawmakers facing economic catastrophe forget about politics and adopt measures that address genuine fiscal issues.
Fact 2: Politicians rarely put politics aside. A recent paper by Andrew Biggs, Kevin Hassett and Matthew Jensen of the American Enterprise Institute shows that even in a time of crisis (or especially in a time of crisis), lawmakers tend to adopt policies for the sake of politics.
Countries in fiscal trouble generally got there through years of catering to interest groups and pro-spending constituencies (on both sides of the political aisle), and their fiscal adjustments tend to make too many of the same mistakes
Myth 3: We have had higher debt-to-GDP ratios before so we shouldn't worry now.
Fact 3: We should worry -- the debt-to-GDP ratio actually underestimates the size of the government's real liabilities. History appears to be reassuring, since several advanced countries have had debt-to-GDP ratios much higher than the one we have now without defaulting, so why should we worry?
Two main reasons: First, while our debt is big now, it's only going to get bigger in the coming years. Second, the debt-to-GDP ratio actually underestimates the scale of our debt problem because of intragovernmental debt, unaccounted liabilities and unfunded liabilities.
Far too many people still harbor the false notion government will always find a way to solve a problem for us. All we have to do trust them. It always worked before, why not now?
Things change! Today is different then yesterday and tomorrow will look nothing like today. To be able to change with the times we actually have to take an active role in the process. We can no longer sit on the side lines while others make decisions that effect us all directly.
Ultimately, we make the final decisions that will make our lives better or worse when we vote. As long as we have the vote, and there those that think we aren't capable of voting responsibly, we all should make every effort to fulfill that obligation to our selves and our off spring by being informed as to what is going on in our country and who will change things for the better.
To do this, we must have good information based on past histories of the candidates and the incumbent, some idea about money and the effects of not having enough of it on our lives and why, then weight the facts as we know them. Be open all sources of information to make decisions, otherwise we run the risks of biased and managed information.
Never forget we are the responsibly parties in this debate. In the end, it all comes down to us to decide our own fate. Elections have consequences as we know only to well from 2008.
The Facts about Spending Cuts, the Debt and Gross Domestic Product
Source: Veronique de Rugy, "The Facts about Spending Cuts, the Debt and the GDP," Reason Magazine, July 29, 2011.
Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, discusses the facts and myths surrounding spending cuts, the debt and gross domestic product (GDP).
Myth 1: You cannot reduce the deficit to an appropriate level without also raising taxes.
Fact 1: Spending cuts are the most effective way to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Harvard's Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna examined 107 efforts to reduce the debt in 21 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations between 1970 and 2007; their findings suggest that tax cuts are more expansionary than spending increases in the cases of a fiscal stimulus. Also, they found that spending cuts are a more effective way to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio.
Myth 2: Lawmakers facing economic catastrophe forget about politics and adopt measures that address genuine fiscal issues.
Fact 2: Politicians rarely put politics aside. A recent paper by Andrew Biggs, Kevin Hassett and Matthew Jensen of the American Enterprise Institute shows that even in a time of crisis (or especially in a time of crisis), lawmakers tend to adopt policies for the sake of politics.
Countries in fiscal trouble generally got there through years of catering to interest groups and pro-spending constituencies (on both sides of the political aisle), and their fiscal adjustments tend to make too many of the same mistakes
Myth 3: We have had higher debt-to-GDP ratios before so we shouldn't worry now.
Fact 3: We should worry -- the debt-to-GDP ratio actually underestimates the size of the government's real liabilities. History appears to be reassuring, since several advanced countries have had debt-to-GDP ratios much higher than the one we have now without defaulting, so why should we worry?
Two main reasons: First, while our debt is big now, it's only going to get bigger in the coming years. Second, the debt-to-GDP ratio actually underestimates the scale of our debt problem because of intragovernmental debt, unaccounted liabilities and unfunded liabilities.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Freedom to Chose Means Economic Freedom
Little wonder America is becoming more stressful and divided. With the advent of the Obama agenda of class warfare and "fundamentally" changing the country from a Democracy, a free Republic, to a socialistic monolith ruled by a all powerful elite, happiness has to be qualified.
How do you define happiness? Should someone have to define happiness for you? Should one have to search for happiness? Given the freedom to choose your own destiny, using what skills God has given you to obtain what ever level of success you want, you then can determine any kind of happiness you want.
Individual freedom to succeed or fail will determine outcomes, not tyrants in Washington.
Economic Freedom and Happiness
Source: Daniel M. Gropper, Robert A. Lawson, and Jere T. Thorne Jr., "Economic Freedom and Happiness," Cato Journal, July 6, 2011.
That liberty is necessary for greater happiness and a better life is a notion deeply rooted in the American sensibility. But is there a link between greater freedom and greater happiness across countries?
Daniel M. Gropper, the David and Meredith Luck Professor in the College of Business at Auburn University, Robert A. Lawson, the Jerome M. Fullinwider Chair in Economic Freedom in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University, and Jere T. Thorne Jr., of the Home Depot and a graduate of Auburn University, answer this question by examining the empirical relationship between liberty, as measured by economic freedom and happiness across more than 100 countries.
Early research tended to find that economic freedom was positively associated with happiness.
More recent work, however, has been mixed. Researchers argue that the association between measures of institutional quality (like freedom) and happiness are different between rich and poor countries. Others contend that the relationship between government size (a component of economic freedom) and happiness is contingent on the quality of the governance. Still, others say that "freedom of choice" is a strong factor in determining happiness.
Using the best available data for a sample of well over 100 countries, the authors find a positive relationship between national levels of happiness and economic freedom. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita also exerts a strong positive influence on happiness.
The statistical impact of both economic freedom and GDP per capita appears to diminish as the other increases, but the combined effect of simultaneously increasing both economic freedom and GDP per capita, particularly for poorer and less free nations, is positive.
Around the world, freer people generally are wealthier, live longer and are happier.
How do you define happiness? Should someone have to define happiness for you? Should one have to search for happiness? Given the freedom to choose your own destiny, using what skills God has given you to obtain what ever level of success you want, you then can determine any kind of happiness you want.
Individual freedom to succeed or fail will determine outcomes, not tyrants in Washington.
Economic Freedom and Happiness
Source: Daniel M. Gropper, Robert A. Lawson, and Jere T. Thorne Jr., "Economic Freedom and Happiness," Cato Journal, July 6, 2011.
That liberty is necessary for greater happiness and a better life is a notion deeply rooted in the American sensibility. But is there a link between greater freedom and greater happiness across countries?
Daniel M. Gropper, the David and Meredith Luck Professor in the College of Business at Auburn University, Robert A. Lawson, the Jerome M. Fullinwider Chair in Economic Freedom in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University, and Jere T. Thorne Jr., of the Home Depot and a graduate of Auburn University, answer this question by examining the empirical relationship between liberty, as measured by economic freedom and happiness across more than 100 countries.
Early research tended to find that economic freedom was positively associated with happiness.
More recent work, however, has been mixed. Researchers argue that the association between measures of institutional quality (like freedom) and happiness are different between rich and poor countries. Others contend that the relationship between government size (a component of economic freedom) and happiness is contingent on the quality of the governance. Still, others say that "freedom of choice" is a strong factor in determining happiness.
Using the best available data for a sample of well over 100 countries, the authors find a positive relationship between national levels of happiness and economic freedom. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita also exerts a strong positive influence on happiness.
The statistical impact of both economic freedom and GDP per capita appears to diminish as the other increases, but the combined effect of simultaneously increasing both economic freedom and GDP per capita, particularly for poorer and less free nations, is positive.
Around the world, freer people generally are wealthier, live longer and are happier.
Energy Independence : Develop America's Natural Resources
This is on the mark, and something that has been brought up many times in the past decade. But the only way for this to work is to elect Conservatives to the federal government, both the White House and the Senate.
But why stop there, get rid of all the Democrats or Republicans in the federal government and state governments, that have shown to have voted against developing our own natural resources, and there are many.
The election in 2012 is coming faster than one might think. Be ready to take a stand for common sense.
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE & SAVING OUR ECONOMY
Looking at our ECONOMY over the past few years I submit that the government’s Green energy policies are not working sufficiently and will not fulfill our energy requirements in the foreseeable future. The administration has pursued this agenda and it not only has not worked, but it has been a hindrance on our economy.
Because of the way our country functions and the vast physical size of our nation, we need large amounts of energy of all kinds, particularly gasoline and fuel oil. Today that means we need more fossil fuels. We could reduce somewhat the requirement for crude, if we had more electricity and a modernized national power grid. That means more nuclear power. Therefore, I suggest we need to change course and start pursuing a plan to take advantage of our available natural resources and spend the money we presently pay for foreign oil, here in our economy. ….FOREVER!
The first step in this process would be to dramatically reduce importing that oil. Presently we pay $750 Billion dollars a year for foreign oil…for which we get nothing but crude. I submit we should give the economy a major shot in the arm by starting an effort to stop importing foreign oil by drilling in ANWR and the North Slope of Alaska. We have a pipeline in Prudhoe Bay that is not running to capacity and we could easily build new pipelines from ANWR and the North Slope to Prudhoe Bay. That would allow us to get the new oil from these reserves into the system and down to the lower forty eight relatively easily. Because of the volume of oil known in these two locations, we could see a significant decrease in imported oil relatively quickly, as these locations come on line. This would allow us to move a major portion of the $750 Billion from foreign lands to our economy producing many new jobs.
Additionally, we could start using much more natural gas in power plants. Building some new refineries in our northern states, such as Washington State, Montana, and North Dakota to expand the refinery processing capability of the country would produce more jobs .
(More new jobs)
An additional process would be to deploy many more nuclear plants, with the goal of eventually converting the country to pollution free electricity. In conjunction with this goal we would totally revamp our National Power Grid, modernizing it which would dramatically lower the size and amount of future power failures. We would protect and control the new expanded grid by making it secure from cyber penetrations. (Many more jobs).
In addition to the above we would also build unique nuclear plants on all three coasts that would not only produce electricity for its geographical area, but would also desalinate sea water to reduce drought conditions and also convert many of the large arid areas of the country into beneficial developments. (More jobs).
As we increase our domestic oil production and surpass our present levels of consumption of imported oil, the new nuclear plants would help us increase our conversion of the country to electricity. This would allow more gasoline at a lower price helping our routine infrastructure laborers and tradesmen expand their efforts. (more jobs).
But why stop there, get rid of all the Democrats or Republicans in the federal government and state governments, that have shown to have voted against developing our own natural resources, and there are many.
The election in 2012 is coming faster than one might think. Be ready to take a stand for common sense.
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE & SAVING OUR ECONOMY
Looking at our ECONOMY over the past few years I submit that the government’s Green energy policies are not working sufficiently and will not fulfill our energy requirements in the foreseeable future. The administration has pursued this agenda and it not only has not worked, but it has been a hindrance on our economy.
Because of the way our country functions and the vast physical size of our nation, we need large amounts of energy of all kinds, particularly gasoline and fuel oil. Today that means we need more fossil fuels. We could reduce somewhat the requirement for crude, if we had more electricity and a modernized national power grid. That means more nuclear power. Therefore, I suggest we need to change course and start pursuing a plan to take advantage of our available natural resources and spend the money we presently pay for foreign oil, here in our economy. ….FOREVER!
The first step in this process would be to dramatically reduce importing that oil. Presently we pay $750 Billion dollars a year for foreign oil…for which we get nothing but crude. I submit we should give the economy a major shot in the arm by starting an effort to stop importing foreign oil by drilling in ANWR and the North Slope of Alaska. We have a pipeline in Prudhoe Bay that is not running to capacity and we could easily build new pipelines from ANWR and the North Slope to Prudhoe Bay. That would allow us to get the new oil from these reserves into the system and down to the lower forty eight relatively easily. Because of the volume of oil known in these two locations, we could see a significant decrease in imported oil relatively quickly, as these locations come on line. This would allow us to move a major portion of the $750 Billion from foreign lands to our economy producing many new jobs.
Additionally, we could start using much more natural gas in power plants. Building some new refineries in our northern states, such as Washington State, Montana, and North Dakota to expand the refinery processing capability of the country would produce more jobs .
(More new jobs)
An additional process would be to deploy many more nuclear plants, with the goal of eventually converting the country to pollution free electricity. In conjunction with this goal we would totally revamp our National Power Grid, modernizing it which would dramatically lower the size and amount of future power failures. We would protect and control the new expanded grid by making it secure from cyber penetrations. (Many more jobs).
In addition to the above we would also build unique nuclear plants on all three coasts that would not only produce electricity for its geographical area, but would also desalinate sea water to reduce drought conditions and also convert many of the large arid areas of the country into beneficial developments. (More jobs).
As we increase our domestic oil production and surpass our present levels of consumption of imported oil, the new nuclear plants would help us increase our conversion of the country to electricity. This would allow more gasoline at a lower price helping our routine infrastructure laborers and tradesmen expand their efforts. (more jobs).
Friday, August 05, 2011
Government Health Care Cost Rises by 50% in 1 Year
Again, government sponsored health care will cost more than thought. Well, who knew?
There hasn't been a government sponsored program ever that cost less than thought. Oh wait, the drug program under Bush has cost less than thought. It cost too much is agreed, but it came under estimates and it is effective.
But no matter what ever happens with other wasteful programs, ObamaCare is the biggest disaster ever that will destroy health care and our entire way of life for everyone, especially the poor.
Government Share of Health Care Bigger than Advertised
Source: Christopher J. Conover, "Government Share of Health Care Is Far Bigger than Advertised," The American, August 2, 2011.
That the government share of health care is rising is no news. The truth hidden from view, however, is that government's share of health spending already exceeded 50 percent in 2009, says Christopher J. Conover, a research scholar at Duke University's Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Health care-related tax subsidies will this year amount to nearly $350 billion annually.
The federal share of this total, $265 billion, is more than the federal government paid for its share of Medicaid in 2009. Thus, ironically, the federal government spent more that year to subsidize private health insurance than it spent on public health insurance for those who have low incomes (although this no longer is true).
Unlike Medicare and Medicaid, such subsidies do not show up as a line item in the federal budget either as expenditures or as deductions from expected revenue. For this reason, tax expenditures are less visible to most Americans than are the direct expenditures financed by the national treasury.
Health-related tax expenditures take many forms, but more than 90 percent of costs attributable to them relate to the tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Ethanol : 19 Billion in Subsides : Big Profits for Democrats
This is something that everyone knows but refuse to do anything about. Ethanol is bad for America and her economy, and the world.
The truth about Ethanol will not stop Washington from pushing this boondoggle until the entire energy system falls on our collective heads. Then, of course, the excuse will be right from the Democrat play book, 'we felt we had to do something about the energy crisis. We feel bad that it didn't work out as we planed, and that million will freeze in the winter and roast in the summer, but with the mess that Bush left us from his failed policies over the past eight years, we had to do something'.
Now that the legislators are trying to stop the insanity of subsides for this fraud, maybe we will see some improvement in food prices and more attention to the production of gasoline.
The Truth about Ethanol
Source: David Biello, "Intoxicated on Independence: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?" Scientific American, July 28, 2011.
Congress is debating whether it's time to end subsidies for ethanol from corn. This debate comes with good reason: while using more ethanol might reduce the use of imported oil, the production of ethanol has its own costs, says Scientific American.
The various costs associated with producing ethanol are alarming. Despite the fact that in recent years the fermentation process has become more efficient in making enzymes and prices have gone down, ethanol continues to be more expensive than petroleum-derived gasoline.
Government subsidization of ethanol production has resulted in $19 billion in tax breaks between 1980 and 2000 to the ethanol-from-corn effort, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Substantial profits have resulted for a handful of large private enterprises.
There is also the production cost of building the new infrastructure for ethanol -- it is expected to take decades to build the needed additional 300-plus bio-refineries.
The push for increasing ethanol production has come despite a 1986 report that ethanol "cannot be justified on economic grounds" and "had no long-term prospect for survival without massive new government assistance."
Additionally, the purported environment benefits of using ethanol include reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This benefit, however, seems to be offset by other environmental externalities from increasing ethanol production. At least one study has found that all of the world's most significant biofuels combined do more damage overall than fossil fuels.
Finally, arguably the greatest concern over ethanol is that it is raising food prices. While the livelihoods of rural communities are enhanced through increased biofuel production, less agricultural goods are directed towards feeding livestock and filling market shelves, among other things.
The truth about Ethanol will not stop Washington from pushing this boondoggle until the entire energy system falls on our collective heads. Then, of course, the excuse will be right from the Democrat play book, 'we felt we had to do something about the energy crisis. We feel bad that it didn't work out as we planed, and that million will freeze in the winter and roast in the summer, but with the mess that Bush left us from his failed policies over the past eight years, we had to do something'.
Now that the legislators are trying to stop the insanity of subsides for this fraud, maybe we will see some improvement in food prices and more attention to the production of gasoline.
The Truth about Ethanol
Source: David Biello, "Intoxicated on Independence: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?" Scientific American, July 28, 2011.
Congress is debating whether it's time to end subsidies for ethanol from corn. This debate comes with good reason: while using more ethanol might reduce the use of imported oil, the production of ethanol has its own costs, says Scientific American.
The various costs associated with producing ethanol are alarming. Despite the fact that in recent years the fermentation process has become more efficient in making enzymes and prices have gone down, ethanol continues to be more expensive than petroleum-derived gasoline.
Government subsidization of ethanol production has resulted in $19 billion in tax breaks between 1980 and 2000 to the ethanol-from-corn effort, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Substantial profits have resulted for a handful of large private enterprises.
There is also the production cost of building the new infrastructure for ethanol -- it is expected to take decades to build the needed additional 300-plus bio-refineries.
The push for increasing ethanol production has come despite a 1986 report that ethanol "cannot be justified on economic grounds" and "had no long-term prospect for survival without massive new government assistance."
Additionally, the purported environment benefits of using ethanol include reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This benefit, however, seems to be offset by other environmental externalities from increasing ethanol production. At least one study has found that all of the world's most significant biofuels combined do more damage overall than fossil fuels.
Finally, arguably the greatest concern over ethanol is that it is raising food prices. While the livelihoods of rural communities are enhanced through increased biofuel production, less agricultural goods are directed towards feeding livestock and filling market shelves, among other things.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Natural Gas and Coal : Energy Resources to Burn
This is a great article in that we have more natural resources for energy then we thought. Plus we have ways to extract and use them in efficient ways. But I still have this nagging question about coal.
We have estimated supplies of more than two hundred years in this country, and this estimate is just that. Some experts say there is more than this. The question is, what is so wrong with coal, even after the industry has complied with all EPA demands?
What we need is some even handed research, that once and for all, lays out what damage coal use does to the environment, if any. There is so much bad information coming from the biased media, it is very difficult to make good decisions regarding the future of coal as a major source of energy for our country.
With 45% of all our energy consumption coming from coal, and for the foreseeable future, we must have good information.
Natural Gas Flip-Flop
Source: Ronald Bailey, "Natural Gas Flip-Flop," Reason Magazine, August/September 2011.
The world's projected natural gas supplies jumped 40 percent last year. Until a decade ago, experts believed it would be technically infeasible to exploit the natural gas locked in 48 shale basins in 32 countries around the world. Then horizontal drilling, combined with hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, was introduced. The shale gas rush was on, and last year the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) dramatically raised its estimate of available natural gas, says Ronald Bailey, Reason Magazine's science correspondent.
The ability to produce clean-burning natural gas from shale could transform the global energy economy.
Right now we burn about 7 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas to generate about 24 percent of the electricity used in the United States. The United States burns a total of 23 TCF annually to heat homes and supply industrial processes as well as produce electricity.
Burning coal still produces about 45 percent of U.S. electricity.
A rough calculation suggests that 100 percent of coal-powered electricity generation could be replaced by burning an additional 14 TCF of natural gas, boosting overall consumption to 37 TCF per year.
The EIA estimates total U.S. natural gas reserves at 2,543 TCF, which suggests that the United States has enough natural gas to last about 70 years if it entirely replaced the current level of coal-powered electricity generation. Similarly, it should be possible to replace all current U.S. gasoline consumption with about 17 TCF of natural gas per year.
So replacing coal and gasoline immediately would require burning 54 TCF annually, implying a nearly 50-year supply of natural gas. And replacing dirtier coal and gasoline with natural gas would reduce overall U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by about 25 percent.
The national green lobbies initially welcomed shale gas. But there is growing concern over the fracking method used to extract the natural gas. But, says Bailey, no industrial process is completely benign, and all have environmental consequences. The relevant question is: Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
We have estimated supplies of more than two hundred years in this country, and this estimate is just that. Some experts say there is more than this. The question is, what is so wrong with coal, even after the industry has complied with all EPA demands?
What we need is some even handed research, that once and for all, lays out what damage coal use does to the environment, if any. There is so much bad information coming from the biased media, it is very difficult to make good decisions regarding the future of coal as a major source of energy for our country.
With 45% of all our energy consumption coming from coal, and for the foreseeable future, we must have good information.
Natural Gas Flip-Flop
Source: Ronald Bailey, "Natural Gas Flip-Flop," Reason Magazine, August/September 2011.
The world's projected natural gas supplies jumped 40 percent last year. Until a decade ago, experts believed it would be technically infeasible to exploit the natural gas locked in 48 shale basins in 32 countries around the world. Then horizontal drilling, combined with hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, was introduced. The shale gas rush was on, and last year the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) dramatically raised its estimate of available natural gas, says Ronald Bailey, Reason Magazine's science correspondent.
The ability to produce clean-burning natural gas from shale could transform the global energy economy.
Right now we burn about 7 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas to generate about 24 percent of the electricity used in the United States. The United States burns a total of 23 TCF annually to heat homes and supply industrial processes as well as produce electricity.
Burning coal still produces about 45 percent of U.S. electricity.
A rough calculation suggests that 100 percent of coal-powered electricity generation could be replaced by burning an additional 14 TCF of natural gas, boosting overall consumption to 37 TCF per year.
The EIA estimates total U.S. natural gas reserves at 2,543 TCF, which suggests that the United States has enough natural gas to last about 70 years if it entirely replaced the current level of coal-powered electricity generation. Similarly, it should be possible to replace all current U.S. gasoline consumption with about 17 TCF of natural gas per year.
So replacing coal and gasoline immediately would require burning 54 TCF annually, implying a nearly 50-year supply of natural gas. And replacing dirtier coal and gasoline with natural gas would reduce overall U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by about 25 percent.
The national green lobbies initially welcomed shale gas. But there is growing concern over the fracking method used to extract the natural gas. But, says Bailey, no industrial process is completely benign, and all have environmental consequences. The relevant question is: Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
China Fossil Fuel Energy Expansion : Huge!
Eco nutjobs will be quick to say that china is moving ahead of us in "clean energy" and it's true, or kind of true. They are building a lot of wind and solar items, but they are not for themselves to use, they are exporting them to idiots over here.
The Chinese use very little clean energy as it is not a good alternative to fossil fuels, like coal and oil as this article points out. But the eco's scream we have to do more to stay in the game or the rest of the world will pass us by. Good.
China's Soaring "Clean" Energy Sector
Source: Steven F. Hayward, "Energy Fact of the Week: China's Soaring 'Clean' Energy Sector?" Enterprise Blog, July 27, 2011.
Much is being made of China's world-leading investment in "clean, green" energy, especially wind and solar power, though much of this is being done to create another export industry to the nations obsessed with climate change, says Steven Hayward, the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
When measured in percentage terms, China's growth in renewable energy from 2000 through 2010 certainly sounds impressive -- up 1,545 percent! But when measured in terms of absolute energy output the numbers game being played here becomes apparent.
When viewed in terms of additional total energy output by source, measured in the common unit of million tons of oil equivalent (MTOE), we see that energy from nonhydro renewable sources (mainly wind and solar) grew by only 11.4 MTOE from 2000 to 2010, while new energy supply from coal grew 976.4 MTOE.
That's 85 times as much new energy that came from coal than from nonhydro renewables.
New hydro power did much better than wind and solar power (up 112.8 MTOE), but much of that increase came from the massive Three Gorges dam that the global environmental community deplores. But in the absence of Three Gorges, China might well have built an additional 50 to 100 coal-fired plants.
The Chinese use very little clean energy as it is not a good alternative to fossil fuels, like coal and oil as this article points out. But the eco's scream we have to do more to stay in the game or the rest of the world will pass us by. Good.
China's Soaring "Clean" Energy Sector
Source: Steven F. Hayward, "Energy Fact of the Week: China's Soaring 'Clean' Energy Sector?" Enterprise Blog, July 27, 2011.
Much is being made of China's world-leading investment in "clean, green" energy, especially wind and solar power, though much of this is being done to create another export industry to the nations obsessed with climate change, says Steven Hayward, the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
When measured in percentage terms, China's growth in renewable energy from 2000 through 2010 certainly sounds impressive -- up 1,545 percent! But when measured in terms of absolute energy output the numbers game being played here becomes apparent.
When viewed in terms of additional total energy output by source, measured in the common unit of million tons of oil equivalent (MTOE), we see that energy from nonhydro renewable sources (mainly wind and solar) grew by only 11.4 MTOE from 2000 to 2010, while new energy supply from coal grew 976.4 MTOE.
That's 85 times as much new energy that came from coal than from nonhydro renewables.
New hydro power did much better than wind and solar power (up 112.8 MTOE), but much of that increase came from the massive Three Gorges dam that the global environmental community deplores. But in the absence of Three Gorges, China might well have built an additional 50 to 100 coal-fired plants.
Monday, August 01, 2011
What a hoot! Federal social programs are rarely evaluated to determine whether they are actually work. This does sound like standard operating procedure for the feds.
Who are these people that we send to Washingtion?
Evaluating Federal Social Programs
Source: David Muhlhausen, "Evaluating Federal Social Programs: Finding Out What Works and What Does Not," Heritage Foundation, July 18, 2011.
Federal social programs are rarely evaluated to determine whether they are actually accomplishing their intended purposes. Congress can take several steps to ensure that federal social programs are properly assessed using experimental evaluations, says David Muhlhausen, a research fellow in empirical policy analysis at the Heritage Foundation.
Step one: When authorizing a new program or reauthorizing an existing program, Congress should specifically mandate experimental evaluation of the program.
Step two: The experimental evaluations should be large-scale, multisite studies.
Step three: Congress should specify the types of outcome measures to be used to assess effectiveness.
Step four: Congress should institute procedures that encourage government agencies to carry out congressionally mandated evaluations, despite any entrenched biases against experimental evaluations.
Step five: Congress should require that congressionally mandated evaluations be submitted to the relevant congressional committees in a timely manner after completion.
With the federal debt reaching staggering heights, Congress needs to ensure that it is spending taxpayer dollars wisely. Multisite experimental evaluations are the best method for assessing the effectiveness of federal social programs. Yet to date, this method has been used on only a handful of federal social programs. Congress needs to reverse this trend, says Muhlhausen.
Who are these people that we send to Washingtion?
Evaluating Federal Social Programs
Source: David Muhlhausen, "Evaluating Federal Social Programs: Finding Out What Works and What Does Not," Heritage Foundation, July 18, 2011.
Federal social programs are rarely evaluated to determine whether they are actually accomplishing their intended purposes. Congress can take several steps to ensure that federal social programs are properly assessed using experimental evaluations, says David Muhlhausen, a research fellow in empirical policy analysis at the Heritage Foundation.
Step one: When authorizing a new program or reauthorizing an existing program, Congress should specifically mandate experimental evaluation of the program.
Step two: The experimental evaluations should be large-scale, multisite studies.
Step three: Congress should specify the types of outcome measures to be used to assess effectiveness.
Step four: Congress should institute procedures that encourage government agencies to carry out congressionally mandated evaluations, despite any entrenched biases against experimental evaluations.
Step five: Congress should require that congressionally mandated evaluations be submitted to the relevant congressional committees in a timely manner after completion.
With the federal debt reaching staggering heights, Congress needs to ensure that it is spending taxpayer dollars wisely. Multisite experimental evaluations are the best method for assessing the effectiveness of federal social programs. Yet to date, this method has been used on only a handful of federal social programs. Congress needs to reverse this trend, says Muhlhausen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
