posted May 13, 2012 02:28 PM            

Taken individually, the items on this list are outrageous enough; but collectively, these ten examples show how the current administration puts America’s energy needs behind the left’s obsession with global warming alarmism.

1. Crucify oil companies

Al Armendariz, administrator of the EPA’s Texas regional office, unwittingly let the Obama administration’s true intentions be known with comments he made about enforcing environmental regulations on energy companies. “It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean,” he said. “They’d go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they’d crucify them.” That pretty much sums up the policies of an administration that has done everything it can to combat the oil industry.

2. Keystone flub

Obama’s decision to halt the Keystone Pipeline XL cost the nation jobs, as well as access to energy resources not controlled by Middle East madmen, all to appease his environmental backers and Hollywood activists. His subsequent attempt to take credit for the southern leg of the project—the so-called Pipeline to Nowhere—shows the ridiculousness of his policy.

3. Alternative-fuel fantasies

Obama’s over-emphasis on alternative energy production has cost the nation billions of dollars as his administration showered stimulus money on companies like solar-panel producer Solyndra, which ultimately went bankrupt. While the number of failed green-energy projects keeps mounting, the amount of energy saved by such endeavors is minuscule.

4. Undeveloped resources

Vast swatches of energy-rich, federally controlled land in the United States—from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to areas off the East and West coasts—remain off-limits for energy development. Obama’s mantra that more oil is being pumped in America than ever before must be tempered by hard facts—increases in production are on private land and are in spite of, not because of, any efforts by the Obama administration.

5. Bungling in the Gulf

The gulf oil spill prompted the Obama adminstration to declare a mortatorium on deepwater drilling, and when oil rigs relocated to Brazil, the president helped to fund that nation’s oil production. Meanwhile, communities near the gulf are still suffering from a loss of jobs resulting from Obama’s actions.

6. War on coal

The Obama Environmental Protection Agency is waging a war on coal, slowing the permitting process to a crawl and issuing crippling regulations. Candidate Obama signaled as much in 2008, when he said: “When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

7. Taxing energy companies

Obama’s class-warfare rhetoric routinely focuses on eliminating tax breaks on oil and gas companies, yet most energy tax write-offs go to renewable green-energy ventures that get little bang for the taxpayer’s buck. The elimination of certain tax benefits would undoubtedly lead to less exploration for new energy sources and higher prices for consumers.

8. Chevy Volt fiasco

Obama’s attempt to leverage the auto bailout by bullying carmakers into making energy-efficient vehicles was a miserable failure. The Chevy Volt cost too much, didn’t work very well, and had safety issues. No wonder the American consumer roundly rejected the effort and the automaker had to suspend production of the Volt.

9. Fracking regulations

Techonological advances in fracking are allowing oil and gas companies to extract energy resources at reduced costs, helping rejuventate the economies of states from North Dakota to Texas. So leave it to the EPA to try to stifle the process with new regulations to curb emissions from fracking. The new standards will cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollar, slowing the fracking boom.

10. High gas prices

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar recently called Republican energy plans “fairy tales” and “falsehoods.” Salazar, asked at a different event if the cost of gas was headed to $9 per gallon, responded by saying, “Where it all will end, no one knows.” What we do know is that Barack Obama and the environmental lobby have long wanted higher gas prices to “save” the planet from global warming. Which party believes in fairy tales, Mr. Salazar?

posted May 14, 2012 12:52 PM            

as to the volt, jwhop, may i remind you that edison had 10000 failures before he got the light bulb right? and considered NOT ONE of them a "failure" but a necessary part of the learning curve?

if it were any other business you would dismiss criticism of failures as "all part of the game".

posted May 14, 2012 02:30 PM            

My God katatonic, solar and wind energy are almost 5 times as expensive as fossil fuel energy.

Oh, and btw, the Saudis are not all that interested in losing their biggest markets for their oil. Who ever told you the Saudis were foresquare behind the world going solar and wind power?

posted May 14, 2012 03:13 PM            

Persian Gulf oil producers are seeking to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels for power generation to maximize exports of valuable crude and allocate natural gas to petrochemicals production."

Project Cost per MWh in US$ MMs

Natural Gas: $800K to $1.2 MM
Onshore Wind: $1.8 MM to $2.4 MM
offshore Wind: $2.0 MM to $3.6 MM
Solar: $4.1 MM to $6.5 MM (in Europe)

Don't ask me for quotes when it comes to banking. It's what I do for a living. I'm not going to discuss confidential, private transactions.

However, one transaction I can discuss is Desert Sunlight, which is a US Government initiated solar transaction in Palm Desert, California. Desert Sunlight has a total Project Cost of US$2,305 MM or $2.3 BN. It has a MW/AC capacity of 550 MW. Project Cost is $4.19 MM per MWh, of which US Treasury Investment Tax Credits and Cash Grants constitute $330 MM, or 18.55% of the total $1,779 MM debt financing ($526 MM in equity). Obama's administration spent $330 MM of your tax dollars on this Project. It is up to 5-1/4 times more expensive than an equivalent natural gas fired power plant for the same 550 MW electricity generation.

posted May 14, 2012 06:23 PM            

however i don't think you read the article. it is the saudis who have decided to invest in solar. the chief reason appears to be to free up more oil to sell to those who need to import it, but they are doing it all the same.

do you really think they would be doing this if the costs weren't worth it in the long run? some people are able to plan longterm, instead of burning all their options before looking for new ones.

and the thing about solar, is once it is in place the maintenance is dead cheap.

for many individuals the set up is where ALL the cost is with solar, and there are so many plans to spread that out that even that cost is less than renting gas from the utilities company. who need some competition anyway if you ask me.

posted May 14, 2012 09:46 PM            

Besides which, Saudi Arabia is not the manufacturing mecca of the world and doesn't have the kind of economy the US has...which is energy reliant and which neither solar or wind can generate sufficient energy to power the US economy.

YTA has it right whe he said solar is 5.25 times more costly than natural gas. Natural gas which the US has in abundant supply.

posted May 14, 2012 10:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YoursTrulyAlways:
Oh Al Gore is making a ton of money. It isn't at the expense of conservatives though, because Al Gore still needs to hire lawyers, bankers, accountants, engineers, etc. it's at the expense of all the other schlubs.

No matter how you twist it, the average guy on the street is being shafted by renewable energy, and regardless of his political viewpoints, the law partner bills at 1,000 an hour and banking fees are well in excess of 10 million per project. Whether unemployment is 6% or 12%, the professionals earn fat bonuses off these renewable projects that you guys endorse so much.

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 14, 2012 10:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
The Saudis may be fore-square behind solar energy for Saudi Arabia...but they sure as hell aren't fore-square behind solar..or wind energy for the rest of the world.

Besides which, Saudi Arabia is not the manufacturing mecca of the world and doesn't have the kind of economy the US has...which is energy reliant and which neither solar or wind can generate sufficient energy to power the US economy.

YTA has it right whe he said solar is 5.25 times more costly than natural gas. Natural gas which the US has in abundant supply.

So yes katatonic, some of your nonsense makes me laugh. Perhaps that's good for me so don't stop.

---

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 14, 2012 10:11 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 15, 2012 11:28 AM            

why does it burn you so that "liberals" (i don't think they really qualify for that label) like making money too? do you HONESTLY think the conservative governments don't make money off the average joe?

posted May 15, 2012 11:28 AM            

why does it burn you so that "liberals" (i don't think they really qualify for that label) like making money too? do you HONESTLY think the conservative governments don't make money off the average joe?

posted May 15, 2012 11:51 AM            

But a renewable Energy Power Puchase Agreement is structured at $150 per MWh, which the utility turns around and blends it into their energy production sources. The utility's blended cost of power may be $120 per MWh, and the utility turns around and sells electricity to the public at $180 per MWh in order to meet expenses, pay taxes and earn a decent rate case profit margin, as governed by Public Utilities Commission.

The electricity piped into my home at $180 per MWh translates to a retail electricity price of 18 cents per kWh, as shown on my monthly bill.

Now, if the utility only had to generate power from coal and natural gas, my utility rates would be about 10 cents per kWh, and from coal only, it would be about 7 cents per kWh.

Why should I be compelled to pay this cost differential? To satisfy you people who want renewable power with zero economic rationale? To satisfy some egotistical politician disillusioned with liberal scientific fakery?

On the other hand, your desire for renewable power provides me my job and fat bonuses, so I'll just shut up and enjoy the perks that you guys provide.