March 4, 2012

Debbie Wasserman Schultz utters a bizarre sentence about Obama's position on the Keystone Pipeline.

On "Meet the Press" today:
It would take 45 years if the Keystone Pipeline were in place, to produce as much oil as President Obama's policy to — on fuel efficiency standards for American automobiles would in increasing those over the next few years.
David Gregory presses her: "So President Clinton had it wrong when he encouraged President Obama to get behind [the Keystone Pipeline?" And with a second shot, she makes the point more clearly:
It would take 45 years to produce out of oil shale from the Keystone Pipeline as much oil as we save in the increase in fuel efficiency standards from President Obama's policy that would be implemented by the middle of the next decade.
So... don't bother developing new oil sources because it's also possible to cut way back on consumption? Don't we need to do both? How small and light are our cars supposed to be? And "the middle of the next decade"? You mean, like around 2025? I can't believe voters will swallow that argument.

114 comments:

edutcher said...

The Demos have been catering to the enviro-nuts for years with that one.

It's always, "Well, it would be 10 years before we saw anything...".

Ditzy Debbie, as she is known, is the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since GodZero decided to destroy America.

Blogger Account said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob_R said...

You haven't seen the legislation. By 2025 we are all required to ride unicorns. They will live on the recycled flesh of Republicans and other undesirables.

America's Politico said...

There really is no point in discussing what people think now.

The election is over. The GOP Ticket (Santorum-Gingrich) will be savagely defeated by Obama-Biden in 49 out of 50 states. The only state they might win by race and gender baiting will be South Carolina.

The talking points of Debbie on MTP was excellent. She is a great solider for the White House.

If I were a woman, I would think of GOP like an infectious disease. I mean, just look at Santorum (who thinks of women as if we are living in dark ages), Gingrich (who had 3 affairs which led to 3 marriages and who opposes two women of marrying), etc. The GOP is a backward party. It is a party that is against women. No women should consider herself safe in the GOP. On the other side, we have an incompetent Obama-Biden.

The only way out of the 2012 election is either to NOT VOTE or Vote for Liberty Paul.

It is a sad day that the GOP is such a bad party. I mean can you believe that Santorum and Gingrich are the actually being considered as POTUS?

Can you believe it? Wake up and smell Starbucks Pike's Roast.

gk1 said...

Thank god she's the democrat's point person. Please, please, PLEASE let her keep talking! Send Slow Joe Biden along with her too. Please let her go to every swing state in balance and talk this gibberish.

traditionalguy said...

Ploesti raids from North africa made famous in one of my favorite books, Catch-22, were near suicide missions because the Germans would do anything to defend their Romanian oil fields.

Meanwhile the GOP and the news media could care less while Obama's force destroys America's oil fields to stop hoax CO2 warming and dole out electric car subsidies for 1898 technology.

Ergo, Obama is a Traitor fighting against the USA from inside his 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue command bunker tied in to the EPA Gestapo.

But apparently that is not newsworthy.

America's Politico said...

When I hear of the word, Keystone, I think of Dan Brown's book, the DaVinci Code. I also think of Opus Dei every time I see Rick Santorum on TV. I mean the guy freaks me out. My former GF screams as soon as she sees or hears Santorum.

John said...

America's politico,

Best troll ever. What is sad is that you almost take it seriously because yes, liberals are that stupid.

m stone said...

Kudos to the former GF.

Ralph L said...

How many decades of driving 2025 cars will it take to save 45 years of Keystone gasoline?

Mark O said...

The proposition that this argument intends to support is that we should not use oil. Is that the working assumption of the Obama administration? Why don’t we use oil? Nothing else currently substitutes effectively for it in manufacturing or in defense. Does this imply that our policy is to degrade our lifestyle and our defense for the sole purpose of “saving” oil?

Saint Croix said...

My former GF screams as soon as she sees or hears Santorum.

You should try whispering his name during sex.

J Allen said...

Low emission unicorns and rainbow power is already being used by this administration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtxqtBq0uVw

Hagar said...

Blabbermouth Schultz lives in a bizarro world.

Bill said...

The more the government props up alternative fuels the more it retards their progress. The more government seeks to actively thwart conventional fuel sources the longer they'll stick around.

If you really, really want fossil fuels to be obsolete as soon as possible then leave them alone. It won't happen as quickly as you'd like but it will happen quicker than if you try to force the market.

Big Mike said...

David Gregory presses her

You mean David Gregory gave her a chance to climb up out of the hole she'd dug.

What Ditzy Debbie's response says is that engineers and physicists be d*mned, they've only been waiting for the appropriate legislative stimulus to get working on fuel efficient cars.

To quote Bugs Bunny ...

Chase said...

So... don't bother developing new oil sources because it's also possible to cut way back on consumption? Don't we need to do both? How small and light are our cars supposed to be? And "the middle of the next decade"? You mean, like around 2025? I can't believe voters will swallow that argument.

1) How stupid and vacuous is the idiot Debbie Wasserman Shultz?

Fucking Pig Stupid. What an ugly piece of human refuse she is, seeking to keep America on the downward slope to obscurity and mediocrity her boy in the White House is working daily on. Meanwhile, today, China graduated 2,000 more engineers. But Obama will lead us. Yeah, go back to sleeping and fucking everything in sight genital worshippers.

2) Too late - Voters have already swallowed that argument and obviously every other one Obama can think of. Hell, they put 'em through the American public education camps. How else can they reason?

The country's lost. Prepare for your sexual masters, You can start practicing on your household pets - it's just a matter of time before Democrats mandate bestiality in elementary school.

Satire? Read this again in 2030, sucker. Oh, sorry, didn't mean to wake you.

Keystone said...

Those chemicals she puts on her hair seem to have fried her brain.

Oshbgosh said...

We will need the Keystone XL oil in order to pay for all of the entitlements that the Democrats want to give us. DW just hasn't woken up to that fact. I predict she will next December.

mesquito said...

DWS has her party chairmanship because she is willing to go on teevee and mouth any talking point she is told to try out. Normal people have at least a little bit of shame and dignity

garage mahal said...

You have TradGuy:

Meanwhile the GOP and the news media could care less while Obama's force destroys America's oil fields to stop hoax CO2 warming and dole out electric car subsidies for 1898 technology

And reality:

The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quad­rupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world.

"It's staggering," said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. "If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years."
Link

Crimso said...

"Ploesti raids from North africa made famous in one of my favorite books, Catch-22, were near suicide missions because the Germans would do anything to defend their Romanian oil fields."

And the Japanese would do anything to obtain oil fields (since FDR embargoed their oil). Knowing that seizing Dutch East Indies oil fields would also put them at war with the UK, and that would put them at war with the US, thus was Pearl Harbor attacked.

It's a shame so many people think of oil as what makes Big Oil rich, rather than a strategic resource. But it's unlikely they've ever heard of Ploesti.

Crimso said...

Garage:
There is a big difference between oil and the refined products obtained from it. Quadrupling rigs is a good start, but if refinery capacity remains the same...

Joe Schmoe said...

Garage, Obama's EPA has prevented drilling into some large reserves off both coasts that are easier to access than the deep water drilling going on in the Gulf of Mexico.

If these, plus the Arctic Refuge reserves, were tapped, we could probably be energy-independent even sooner.

But hey, like Stewart Brand, I'm ready for more nuclear power if we want to get off fossil fuels.

narciso said...

Professor Althouse, is that any crazier than Obama's solution to the energy crisis be inflating your tires properly, yet you found wisdom
in that,

rhhardin said...

Obama is still into global warming.

Running out of oil can't happen even if we were running out of oil, which we're not.

Rialby said...

They won't swallow that argument but they will swallow this one: THERE'S A REPUBLICAN WAR ON WOMEN!!

Methadras said...

Every breath uttered from this womans mouth is an absolute lie. Where is the data that shows her claim. I want to see it.

Chip Ahoy said...

I know a guy named Chase.

Modeled for Joslin's but they fired him when someone showed them he did some naughty postcards. We used to go out clubbing all the time, we lived close and he didn't drive. Ever hear the expression someone turned heads? Chase snapped necks. It was disgusting. Everybody wants to know about Chase, and they all get cranked way out of character whenever he's around. Immediately. It's awful how everybody's behavior changes whenever Chase is present, he's like a black hole of gravitational behavior-pull and then they say the most awful things false things about him when he's not around.

But you are not he of whom I speak. The Chase I know would not say vacuous.

I ♥ Willard said...

I can't believe voters will swallow that argument.

Professor! Don't you pay attention to politics AT ALL? Voters believe all sorts of silly and stupid things.

Never underestimate the gullibility of the American electorate.

chuckR said...

We should all switch to electric cars. They don 't burn gasoline; they burn coal instead.

What DWS doesn't seem factor in is what Crimso alluded to - oil is strategic and will remain so for the forseeable future. Reducing our dependency on foreign sources, in concert with reducing consumption, is a way to reduce the power of nasty regimes in the Middle East, even though the US doesn't get much of this fungible resource from them.

cubanbob said...

Crimso said...
Garage:
There is a big difference between oil and the refined products obtained from it. Quadrupling rigs is a good start, but if refinery capacity remains the same...

3/4/12 7:35 PM

Fortunately the democrats have so trashed the economy that the daily consumption of gasoline is nearly 45% less today than the daily consumption under the evil demons Bush & Cheney. Fortunately with the economy as it is we are able to export refined products and have no need to increase refinery capacity.

cubanbob said...

edutcher said...
The Demos have been catering to the enviro-nuts for years with that one.

It's always, "Well, it would be 10 years before we saw anything...".

Ditzy Debbie, as she is known, is the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since GodZero decided to destroy America.

3/4/12 6:58 PM

You have no idea how depressing it is to have that moron as your congressperson. Worst still, the republicans won't even try to find an opponent.

dbp said...

Let's just raise fuel efficiency standards to 1,000miles/gallon. Problem solved!

Bender said...

the increase in fuel efficiency standards from President Obama's policy

More from the truth by fiat crowd. Doesn't matter that the actual engineering and physics does not exist to increase CAFE standards to impossible levels. Just wave your magic wand and decree it to be so.

Jason said...

When GW Bush wanted to open ANWAR up to drilling for oil, the favorite liberal line at that time was, "It would take 10 years before the drilling would produce one drop of oil."

Well...that was 10 years ago. And the gasoline price is over double what it was then. The oil fields in Alaska could be pumping tens of thousands of gallons of oil into the United States at this very minute.

Trying to develop clean energy is great. But, until that time when (or if) it becomes a viable energy source, the world runs on oil. China understands this. Russia understands this. The rest of the industrialized world understands this.

Hell, just look at our own state: Democrats in Madison cant even get behind opening up an iron ore mine, where it would create over 2000 jobs, most of them unionized. Yet they are supposedly the party that cares about the middle class.

We are literally the only country on the planet that doesnt use the vast resources it has for our own use.

The next time Obama spills out the "less dependent on foreign oil line" in a debate, all Romney needs to do is hammer home on the Keystone pipeline.

Synova said...

Isn't there also a relationship between how much driving or using energy we do to how available it is?

Get a car that uses almost no gas and suddenly it's cheap and easy to drive *everywhere* and so you do. So it evens out because the limit is on how much money we have to do things that are optional.

That's not a reason not to have efficient cars and it certainly isn't a reason to artificially try to keep gas expensive.

As anyone who buys groceries knows.

It's not just food prices, but progress requires energy. Building, developing, even just researching, takes power.

Having more power for all sorts of sources is and can only be a good thing. Why are progressives so anti-progress?

Chase said...

Chip,

Thanks - enjoyable.

I am cranked, though at the daily dishonesty and 2 facedness of the Democrat media, but especially disgusted at the downward sprial of integrity I read here in the words of our blog hostess, someone I admired so long (as anyone can see here going back to 2004). It is frustrating to see my country go backwards by people whose lives are run by their gentalia, even above the security of this country. Disconcerting.

I know I cannot stop it, because the evil in human nature always wins over the simple minded that are not constrained by such things as intellectual integrity and telling the truth, but I will not go quietly.

edutcher said...

cubanbob said...

You have no idea how depressing it is to have that moron as your congressperson. Worst still, the republicans won't even try to find an opponent.

You're in the State of Meshugah? My sympathies, but I know better than you think. In Philadelphia, the Republican City Committee was so supine for so many years, it had to be checked to see if all on it were still alive.

You had to go out into the 'burbs to make a fight against the Demos.

That's why I hate RINOs so much. I grew up with that kind of mentality all around.

I hear even the Demos are abandoning the Motor City and its environs, so your turn may come sooner than you think.

Chip S. said...

Give Debbie W-S a break. It can't be easy to memorize a talking point as idiotic as that one.

Henry said...

What Synova said. It's not the efficiency that matters, it's the miles driven.

We also know, as Obama's economy proves now, and as the Japanese proved last decade, that nothing helps decrease oil consumption like a recession.

The most efficient car is the one that never leaves the car lot.

Chuck66 said...

One of the tactics the anti-oil people use against development is to:

A) Take the lowest estimate of production, then
B) Use a stat that assumes 100% of our oil needs will come from that single source.

I think she is trying to do a varition of that method.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Why is anyone surprised? The stated goal of the Obama Administration is to get to $8.00 per gallon for gas. There is an all out war on fracking, cancellation of Keystone XL, an illegal moratorium on Gulf drilling and no ANWR.

We are half way to their goal.

Crimso said...

"even though the US doesn't get much of this fungible resource from them."

But the reality is that even if we got no oil at all from the ME, we would still be just as involved there. Neither the EU nor Japan has the capability to project power (to any useful extent) there, and so we will continue to guarantee their access.

The silly belief that Iran could effectively interdict the Straits long enough to cause major disruptions becomes a sad reality without US power (I remember in the 80s reflagging Kuwaiti tankers as US ships; the Iranians weren't quite as interested in attacking them then).

Of course, we could always encourage the Japanese to embark on a major naval program, but most of Asia well remembers what happened when Japan had CVs.

Seems we keep getting dragged into "wars for oil" whether the oil in question is destined for Exxon or not. What does that tell you?

Chuck66 said...

We have $100,000,000,000 in unfunded entitlement liabilities. We have an oil crises on the horizon, and all the gov't cares about is getting free bith control to 30 year old college women.

AJ Lynch said...

Will DWS be able to squeeze her fat butt into one of those gas-sipping high milegage motorized coffins?

MayBee said...

We cannot afford to indulge this madness.

AJ Lynch said...

Chuck - you need 3 more zero's.

Ralph L said...

they fired him when someone showed them he did some naughty postcards.
Good grief--hasn't everyone done that?

Titus said...

This is outrageous.

She is awful.

She is a democrat.

She is ugly.

Thank you for posting this and reminding us.

Any Mitch Connell rebuttals to this? Nah, he is hot.

Alex said...

This is outrageous. Why can't Dumb Debbie keep to the script - "Rush Limbaugh is a theocratic Puritan women-hater pig". Talking about the Keystone pipeline or the economy is NOT good for Obama.

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alex said...

Titus - your leftism is not so opaque anymore. Stick to anal jokes.

Dopey said...

A little off topic -- but couldn't the Democrats have picked someone other than every man's nightmare blind date as their spokesperson?

Alex said...

Why Obama is not a lock

However:

The problem is that they don’t have to vote for Obama for Obama to win. They just have to be wary enough of the devil they don’t know, to vote against the GOP candidate, if the GOP candidate makes them uncomfortable. That’s how Bush beat Kerry.

Fortunately, the GOP candidate is most likely going to be Romney, who is just vanilla enough not to scare away the middle. (insert chocolate joke here)

keep the change on March 4, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Henry said...

The reason to promote fuel efficiencies, in cars and elsewhere, is not to do without power. It is to make power cheaper and available for better alternatives. Fuel efficiency extends fuel.

Oil is electricity, gasoline, plastics, fertilizer. Oil means warmth for poor people, and food for hungry people, and opportunity for people that need jobs. The more oil you have and the more efficiently you use it the more people will see their lives improve.

Imagine Wasserman-Schultz in 1930 saying, "We don't need to build Boulder dam. We'll just not bother with rural electrification."

That is exactly what she's saying.

Maguro said...

That oil is coming out of the ground no matter what, the only thing that's changed is that for the refining stage, the Canadians will send it to China by ship instead of sending it to the US by pipe. Which I guess is supposed be a victory for the environment or something.

Rusty said...

Crimso said...
Garage:
There is a big difference between oil and the refined products obtained from it. Quadrupling rigs is a good start, but if refinery capacity remains the same...


Not only are EPA regulations keeping new refineries from being built in the US , but the timeline for upgrading old refineries is some were around eight years.

ed said...

"How many decades of driving 2025 cars will it take to save 45 years of Keystone gasoline?" - Ralph L

Well Keystone XL is supposed to be able to handle about 900,000 barrels a day of oil from Alberta. I think each barrel has 42 gallons of oil in it. Let's assume a fracture rate of 50% for gasoline so that's 21 gallons per barrel. 21 x 900,000 = 18,900,000 gallons of gasoline per day.

And 45 years worth would be 45 x 18.9 million gallons per day = 850,500,000 gallons.

So evidently by 2025 we'll be saving 850.5 million gallons of gasoline. What time frame that is, per year or what, no idea.

Yeah the whole thing is pretty silly. Really. 850 million gallons of gas? Wouldn't we get twice the effect if we both had 850 million gallons of gas *and* saved 850 million gallons of gas?

But in Obama's world, only one or the other. Never both.

Rusty said...

Maguro said...
That oil is coming out of the ground no matter what, the only thing that's changed is that for the refining stage, the Canadians will send it to China by ship instead of sending it to the US by pipe. Which I guess is supposed be a victory for the environment or somethin


One thing is certain. There's going to be a pipeline going somewhere

Kirk Parker said...

"Debbie Wasserman Schultz utters a bizarre sentence"

This is not news.

Original Mike said...

I'm sorry, but I've been listening to her for a year or two now, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is just not vey smart.

gk1 said...

I think this is the best tonic for republicans. Have the democrats talk about energy. Its pretty clear they have no idea what they are talking about and their hostility towards fossil fuels is the worst kept secret in the country. COme on Debbie Downer, don't stop talking in Florida, you need to get to Ohio and Pennsylvania. We Can No Longer WAIT!

bagoh20 said...

Frankly, I'm surprised by Obama's approach to Keystone. From past attempts I'd expect him to invest billions and then before a drop of oil flows they lay off everyone and go bankrupt. That's the Obama energy policy I've seen for 3 years. This could be his greatest "accomplishment" to date. It's a threefer: 1) spend a bunch of money, 2) prevent oil production, 3) more people on food stamps. All three are objectives actually stated by our President. Someone in the administration is slipping.

PackerBronco said...

I half expected her to suggest we just repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, because y'know that law was written by some dead white male and really needs to updated to be relevant to today's multi-racial trans-gendered culture.

bagoh20 said...

"THERE'S A REPUBLICAN WAR ON WOMEN!!"

I think the women already won that, and the Republicans were on defense from day one, many decades ago.

bandmeeting said...

I can't believe voters will swallow that argument

I think anyone who voted for that dope swallowed a lot more than an argument.

Lou Skeezik said...

America's Politico:

Yeah, you're right. I mean, Bill Clinton has only been married once, and women respect him for that.

garage mahal said...

Garage:
There is a big difference between oil and the refined products obtained from it. Quadrupling rigs is a good start, but if refinery capacity remains the same.


I wonder why the Canadians don't just refine it themselves. Seems woefully inefficient to pipe it all the way to the Gulf.

Jason said...

I wonder why the Canadians don't just refine it themselves. Seems woefully inefficient to pipe it all the way to the Gulf.

The environmental regulations are different between Canada and the US. Hell, the regulations arent even the same between states in this country.

There is no sane reason the Keystone pipeline shouldnt be built. Between the thousands upon thousands of jobs it would take, along with buying oil from an ally just a few thousand miles away, it makes too much sense.

Which is why Dems dont want to do it. Pumping in cheap oil from Canada defeats the purpose of Obama throwing away billions of taxpayer money on "green" energy.

traditionalguy said...

As for the Republican war on women, Sarah Palin suspects that it is the Catholic priests insisting on job security.

She said "glass ceiling...what glass ceiling?" while picking shards of glass out of her bloody hair.

JHapp said...

currently at the CME / NYMEX: Nat Gas $2.50 / million BTU and Gasoline $3.30 / gallon.
Since gasoline is .114 million BTU / gallon you get gasoline is $29 / million BTU.
This is a 12:1 ratio. A Prius goes 50 miles on a gallon of $4 gas. The NG equivalent will go (almost) 600 miles on $4. I like to think of it as 100 miles / $.

Kirk Parker said...

Jason,

"There is no sane reason the Keystone pipeline shouldn't be built. Between the thousands upon thousands of jobs it would take, along with buying oil from an ally just a few thousand miles away, it makes too much sense."

Add to that all the existing pipeline infrastructure along similar routes, safely and efficiently transporting both crude and refined products... it's not exactly untested technology.

SteveR said...

Not intending to pick on the disabled but DWS is ignorant. The Keystone Pipeline will deliver oil derived from OIL SANDS not shale oil. Not a minor difference. Clearly her objection is entirely political, not a good way to set energy and economic policy. Idiot

Ctmom4 said...

Garage:
"The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quad­rupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world."
Sorry, he doesn't get credit for that. All the new drilling is on private lands. Leases on federal lands ae down 40% from the Bush administration, and 70% from Clinton's. Increase in production happened in spite of Obama.

Maguro said...

I wonder why the Canadians don't just refine it themselves. Seems woefully inefficient to pipe it all the way to the Gulf.

They are considering this, but it's actually more efficient to pipe it to the US because there's excess refining capacity in the Gulf coast area. In any case, there will be a pipeline moving that crude somewhere, whether it's the US, eastern Canada or China.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/69378-alberta-oil-pipeline-eastern-canada-sounds-no-brainer

Penny said...

Bzzzzzzzzzzz

Wrong answer, Ms. Schultz.

Care to take another stab at that?

Bzzzzzzzzzzz

Penny said...

Good party spokesmen are harder and harder to find.

Penny said...

So can we quibble instead about my use of the generic term "spokesman"?

DADvocate said...

She's a schizophrenic, give her a break. As someone pointed out, Clinton was giving the drilling, pipelines, etc won't give any immediate relief during his administration. If he had allowed increased drilling, pipelines, etc, they'd be producing right now.

At some point, it really helps when you plan for the future.

Penny said...

"Yes we can!"

Karnival said...

She is as stupid as they come. If she were a Republican they'd be making up skits about her on SNL.

I have to wonder about people who come from districts of utterly stupid congresspeople. How is it that they actually vote for these people again? You have to believe they've heard them speak, seem them think in action. Its not like you'd hire someone for your business if they sounded like her, let alone put her in front of the press to represent you.

garage mahal said...

In any case, there will be a pipeline moving that crude somewhere, whether it's the US, eastern Canada or China.

Let them build a pipeline to eastern Canada then?

walter said...

"How small and light are our cars supposed to be?"

Cars will never fit in the bike lane.

chickenlittle said...

Increased fuel efficiency leads to increased overall fuel consumption. Generically, this is called Jevon's paradox.

This happened once already in the US with fuel efficency and will likely happen again--unless we can be forced into electric cars.

chickenlittle said...

We just bought another VW diesel. Electric cars are not ready for prime time.

Charlie said...

OK, so she's not Debbie Wasserman-Einstein.

chickenlittle said...

I'm gonna start doing this. It's ingenious. Our mechanic has been doing it for years on other people's dime.

John Lynch said...

Her way requires us to change our behavior. That's what it's really about- making us change. Makingus change.

It's all about power.

Bruce Hayden said...

Will DWS be able to squeeze her fat butt into one of those gas-sipping high milegage motorized coffins?

Won't have to. Remember, these fuel efficiency rules only apply to the little people. The private jets were parked a couple country away during the Hopenhagen climate confab, because there were so many of them being used to get the big wigs there and back.

Does anyone here believe that any of these people will give up their stretch limos and Government Motors large SUVs? Every time I go to D.C., I marvel at the number of new model (mostly) black or white Suburbans, Tahoes, Escalades, etc. you see. Almost worse than N. Nevada, where they actually have a use for them.

What she isn't talking about is that a lot of that weight loss is by giving up safety. And, what would you rather be in in an accident, one of those Suburbans that the D.C. power brokers will most likely continue to drive around in? Or, the small box that will give that sort of mileage?

Gary Rosen said...

"Doesn't matter that the actual engineering and physics does not exist to increase CAFE standards to impossible levels. Just wave your magic wand and decree it to be so."

You have forgotten about the algae which will solve all our energy problems.

Crimso said...

"I wonder why the Canadians don't just refine it themselves. Seems woefully inefficient to pipe it all the way to the Gulf."

They do. They are the #1 supplier to the US of imported refined crude oil products (about 25-30% of our total imports). As Maguro noted above, they are probably looking to pipe it somewhere where there is refining capacity. Also, I think this form of oil requires special refining, so it may make more sense to send it to certain locations for refining.

Bruce Hayden said...

We just bought another VW diesel. Electric cars are not ready for prime time.

Don't know if they ever will be, at least for a lot of us. Would have worked just fine when I was in N. Nevada, because work was 1 mile from home, and I could charge over night. Now? No way.

The basic problem is that the energy density is far too low in electric vehicles, both in the charging and in the batteries. And, even theoretical maximums in these areas don't help much, unless you go to something like hydrogen for energy storage, which, unfortunately, as those aboard the Hindenberg, discovered to their, very short, dismay.

I just drove from Phoenix to Colorado, about 800 miles in my 4500 lb Chevy Tahoe. It took maybe 60 gallons of gas, that weighs about 360 lbs, and which I was able to fill in maybe 15 minutes total. Now, given the size of the vehicle, I could have easily carried enough fuel for the entire trip, but didn't, since I would have wasted gas carrying gas. Still, we are talking less than 10% of the weight of the vehicle, and at the full 10% for fuel, probably could have gone 1,000 miles.

Current battery technology provides 100-200 miles on a single charge, with fast charging for 30 minutes giving another 80% each time. Accepting 200 miles per charge (which is unrealistically high), and assuming that the vehicle started fully charged, 800 miles would require four fast charges of 30 minutes each, totalling 2 hours filling up (if you can find fast-charging stations, which, of course, you cannot, esp. across the Navajo Nation, larger than some states). That assumes an electric vehicle where a significant amount of its weight is in batteries. Maybe 50%. And, that means much less weight being moved that can include people, other stuff, and all that metal protecting you. And, it gets worse with my 3/4 ton K2500 Suburban that weighs almost another 1,000 lbs.

But, if you ever tried to go that entire distance with an electric car, you would soon find that the battery weight would soon explode. Assume a small 2,000 lb electric car, with half its weight in batteries to give you a (very generous) 200 mile driving distance. But, that would take two 1,000 lb batteries, with another 1,000 lb for everything else. Except that we aren't talking just moving 2,000 lbs the first 200 miles, but rather, 3,000, which would really require 1,500 lbs of battery for each 200 miles, giving a total weight of 4,000 lbs, but, that really means two 2,000 lb batteries for the 400 miles, with the 1,000 lbs for everything else, etc. And that doesn't count the battery size required for the third and fourth 200 lbs. Anyone with a decent mathematical background can see that this isn't going anywhere good.

In the real world, things aren't quite that bad. The Nissan Leaf utilizes approximately 20% of its weight in batteries to propel it between 75 and 100 miles. Still, that means 160% (without the mathematical series problem above) of the weight of a vehicle in batteries for 800 miles. Or, maybe 5 hours of quick charging.

The basic problem is energy density. Petroleum based fuels have a much higher energy density than do batteries, even after being far less efficient (75% for batteries, and 20% for ICEs).

Bruce Hayden said...

And, they aren't going to get those quick charge times down much either. Why? Because moving electrons creates heat, and the less efficient the material utilized, the more heat generated. Copper is most likely now, but it is being stripped at a decent clip by thieves. Gold would be better, but, think about how long gold would last at the "pumps" before being stripped by thieves.

All of these are fairly mature technologies. We just aren't going to see a doubling of battery efficiencies (and, really couldn't, given the physics involved), without going to something like hydrogen.

Of course, if you live in a big city like Wash.,D.C. or NYC, then fully electric vehicles may be feasible. And, probably not coincidentally, that is where the regulators and legislators mandating all this stuff live.

Maguro said...

Let them build a pipeline to eastern Canada then?

Great plan. It'd not like we need more jobs in this country, anyway.

Jay said...

Remember, liberals are smart are you're dumb.

Roger J. said...

Garage--re pipeline to eastern canada--the major market for canadian oil is China, and probably India--that vitiates eastern canada as a pipeline destination. Geography was clearly not your strong suit.

Phil 3:14 said...

"Essentially, it's game over for the planet," said James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is quoted by reporter Jane Mayer in the Nov. 28th issue of "The New Yorker" magazine as making the statement to environmental activist Bill McKibben.

But remember, its only Republicans and conservatives who are extreme.

Leland said...

RE: Garage's pointer to Baker Hughes, did anyone note that Baker Hughes has a blog for Rig Count?

Since Garage notes it as an objective source of data, I'm sure he will accept the statements made on the blog?

Crimso said...

"But remember, its only Republicans and conservatives who are extreme."

It's really much worse. Hansen is one of the people calling for trials of "denialists" (presumably this includes other scientists who dare to do their jobs). Meanwhile, I will continue to pointedly ignore the entire section on AGW found in the chapter on gases in the Gen Chem text we're using; I refuse to teach politics in my science classes.

Jay said...

Since Garage notes it as an objective source of data, I'm sure he will accept the statements made on the blog?


That assumes garage is capable of logic. Which of course he isn't.

It is funny to watch him wade in on this topic, yet another which he doesn't even know what he doesn't even know. Specifically, the difference between an oil rig, an oil well, an oil refinery, and baby oil.

He's an idiot beyond compare.

rcommal said...

For someone with a "Master of Arts with certificate in political campaigning," DWS isn't much of a saleswoman (except for her own seat).

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
Garage:
There is a big difference between oil and the refined products obtained from it. Quadrupling rigs is a good start, but if refinery capacity remains the same.

I wonder why the Canadians don't just refine it themselves. Seems woefully inefficient to pipe it all the way to the Gulf.


They don't have any west coast capacity. About the only thing more expensive than a petroleum pipeline is an oil refinery. Refineries are designed around the type of crude they will process. Gulf coast refineries can handle a lot of different crude oils.

Leland said...

Wow, there is so much more at the Rig Count link. For instance, a spreadsheet that shows the US had over 2000 operating rigs in December 2011. What was Garage's count again (scrolling)... 1272? Oh, I see, Garage was using the count for oil rigs, which by the way for this week is actually 1293.

The problem is Baker Hughes counts total rigs (oil and gas). When you look at those numbers, you see wild fluctuations week to week. For instance, you can pick a number, say the 26th week of 2009 and note 917 operating rigs. Or, you can pick week 1 of 2009 and get 1623 operating rigs. Does anyone remember what happened to the price of oil/gas in the summer of 2009? Anyone know the price of oil today? What did Obama say about the price of oil in 2009? What is saying about it today?

Rusty said...

Crimso said...
"I wonder why the Canadians don't just refine it themselves. Seems woefully inefficient to pipe it all the way to the Gulf."

They do. They are the #1 supplier to the US of imported refined crude oil products (about 25-30% of our total imports). As Maguro noted above, they are probably looking to pipe it somewhere where there is refining capacity. Also, I think this form of oil requires special refining, so it may make more sense to send it to certain locations for refining.

Mostly east coast. They have some of N Americas largest oil refineries.

Hagar said...

but, like President Obama said, she is cute and has a nice smile.

tmitsss said...

Seen on the interweb

Q. What is the best time to plant a Tree

A. Twenty years ago

Q. What is the second best time to plant a tree

A. Today

paul a'barge said...

Debbie Wasserman Moron

dbp said...

DWS's lack of intellectual firepower is a feature not a bug. It is hard to convincingly say things that you know are stupid. So if you get a spokesman who is dumb, they will convincingly espouse the purest nonsense.

MikeL said...

Is DWS dumn or just unscrupulous, like her pupper masters?

Obama's statements are often just as inane:
- We can't drill our way to lower oil prices
- American's need relief so my administration will consider releasing oil from the strategic reserve

- We have just 2% of world oil reserves but 25% of consumption

- Republicans say my stimulus is just government spending, well what do you think stimulus is?

Time was that partisan positioning involved selective use of facts. Now, facts are unnecessary, sincere repetition of inane talking points is all that matters. Facts be damned.

Alec Rawls said...

No Ann, we absolutely do not need to "cut way back on consumption." We are already cutting back far more than is economically rational, because the degree of conservation is determined by prices, and right now prices are artificially at least twice what they should be, purely a product of artificially constrained supply. We have the world's largest fossil resources by a huge margin, which are going largely undeveloped ENTIRELY because of legal obstructions. We should be using much MORE fossil energy, and our failure to use the economically rational amount is destroying our economy before our eyes.

TRUTHMONGER said...

PATRIOTS, WE NEED TO BOMBARD THIS "JUDGE" WITH FAXES. S/he just ruled against the farmers who sued Monsanto. If you can believe it, Monsanto has sued farmers for patent infringement - AND WON! - because some of Monsanto's seeds blew into these farmers' fields and mingled with their produce. These farmers filed a counter-lawsuit against Monsanto. BUT TO A "JEW" THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. NOR IS IT CONSIDERED INJUSTICE TO SCREW A GENTILE IN COURT (Read the "jewish" talmud for confirmation of this fact: http://100777.com/protocols.). "Jewish" "judge" NAOMI BUCHWALD didn't hesitate to rule in favor or her "jewish" comrades at Monsanto where BILL GATES IS A MAJOR STOCKHOLDER. Her kind aren't even hiding it anymore; THEY'RE ACTIVELY PILLAGING THE GOYIM (HUMAN CATTLE - GENTILES) MORE EVERYDAY. Let our judeo-commie government know they're being assailed from every direction, and WILL BE until they pack up and move to their "homeland". Read about this case at: http://tinyurl.com/JewsRuleInFavorOfJews. Then fax this throwback Buchwald at (212) 637-2390.*

DEAN BERRY MINISTRIES: "When a government outlaws 'terrorism', they're planning something for which 'terrorism' is the only recourse."

*Oh, you can tell which blogs are "jew" run by the posts they delete. In many cases, they're simply pretending to lambaste the "jewish" bankers who've foisted this depression on us, or the "jewish" media who's programmed Americans to be duplicitous, corrupt, amoral, and licentious. It's all show, folks, they're part of the problem too.

Nate Whilk said...

Althouse wrote, "I can't believe voters will swallow that argument."

You assume there will be voting by 2025.