Posts Tagged ‘Energy Independence’
In Europe, “green” policies to eliminate nuclear and coal power for “green” alternatives worked so well that desperate Greeks and Germans resorted to stealing firewood from local forests to keep warm this winter.
Sadly, it doesn’t appear that Obama’s nominee has learned from their mistake. He insists that skyrocketing energy prices are just what we need to force people away from fossil fuels towards a gloriously “green,” utopian future:
President Obama’s Energy secretary nominee regards a carbon tax as one of the simplest ways to move the energy industry towards clean technologies, though he notes that government would have to come up with a plan to mitigate the burden this tax places on poor people, who would pay the most.
“Ultimately, it has to be cheaper to capture and store it than to release it and pay a price,” MIT professor and Energy nominee Ernest Moniz told the Switch Energy Project in an interview last year. “If we start really squeezing down on carbon dioxide over the next few decades, well, that could double; it could eventually triple. I think inevitably if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on the cost, it brings along with it a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push towards clean technologies in a conventional pollution sense; it brings along with it a push towards security. Because after all, the security issues revolve around carbon bearing fuels.”
Moniz position is not far from that of Energy Secretary Steven Chu before he took a job in the Obama administration. “We have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Chu said in 2008. Last year, gas hit $9 a gallon in Greece.
As if poor and middle class families aren’t hurting enough trying to make ends meet as it is.
First they cut the defense budget. Now they want to convert our navy to run on a $26 per gallon fuel.
Meanwhile, China is in the middle of a massive military build-up, Russia is restarting the Cold War, and Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon. Priorities??
Just when you thought the Obama administration could not do any further damage to the military that it already has, now we learn the he is forcing his “green energy” agenda upon the U.S. Navy by forcing all non-nuclear powered vessels to use “bio-fuel.”
This month, a carrier strike group that is headed to the Pacific for a six-week multinational naval exercise off the coast of Hawaii, will have its non-nuclear powered escort vessels, which include a destroyer and a tanker, use a newly formulated 50-50 mixture of standard [diesel] fuel, and a cocktail of seeds, algae and chicken fat, according toa July 2, 2012 FOXNews article.
A Navy official stated that operating the so-called “Great Green Fleet” on this blend of alternative and conventional fuel is part of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ plan to have half the Navy fleet on alternative fuel by 2020.
The Navy official answered…
Investments in biofuel will produce a competitively priced — and domestically produced — alternative to conventional fuel. Such investments help the Navy and the nation become less dependent on foreign oil and thus less subject to volatility in oil prices that directly affect our readiness.
Not so fast.
What will really ‘affect the readiness’ of our Navy is it having to file for bankruptcy–because this biofuel mixture was confirmed to cost $26 a gallon–more than seven times the $3.60 a gallon cost for conventional fuel.
This has nothing to do with protecting the environment or promoting energy independence. It has EVERYTHING to do with corrupt leftists abusing unconstitutional powers to target specific industries they ideologically oppose simply because they exist at all.
This abuse of power demonstrates why such unelected, unaccountable, and unconstitutional agencies and departments need to be completely abolished.
It’s bad enough that government regulations and environmental legal defense groups have prevented us from building oil refineries for over 30 years. It’s even worse when the existing ones are forced to blend fuel mixtures that don’t exist.
We are all painfully aware of the Soviet style mandate that requires 10% of petroleum to be comprised of ethanol. This unconstitutional mandate has killed jobs, driven up the cost of fuel and food, lowered gas mileage, and damaged car engines – all to benefit corporate cronies in Big Ag. This odious fuel source is primarily made from corn. But since 2010, the EPA has mandated the blending of more than 20 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel into the nation’s fuel supply. The problem is that while creating efficacious fuel from grass, wood, and algae might sound great in theory, it doesn’t exist on the commercial fuel market.
On December 19, 2007, President Bush signed a disastrous socialist energy bill that contained numerous green energy mandates and subsidies. It also banned the sale of incandescent light bulbs. The “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” passed with support from 39 Republican senators and 95 Republican congressmen. It created a Renewable Fuels Mandate requiring that 22 billion gallons of renewables be blended into our gasoline supply by 2016 and 36 billion gallons by 2022. The bill also created a few sub-mandates, one of which required a blend of 100 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel by 2010, rising to 250 million in 2011, 500 million in 2012, and 16 billion by 2022. The bill also established a tax credit of $1.01 per gallon produced.
Despite the tremendous tailwinds of tax credits and the boot of the government used to force fuel blenders to purchase cellulosic fuels, the industry has failed to perform magic and become commercially viable during the past 5 years. Some of the plants that were given subsidies to produce this phantom fuel were never even built. Yes – this is a scandal far worse than Solyndra.
What is even more scandalous is that oil companies are forced to pay a tax for not blending this phantom fuel!
Because oil companies are deemed to be in violation of the renewable fuels mandate, they are forced to purchase waiver credits from the EPA or face large fines. Oil companies have been forced to pay $14 million in these credits so far (more than all the green energy companies have paid in taxes). Yes, indeed we already have a cap and trade program in place.
At present, there is a pending lawsuit against the EPA over the phantom fuel mandate filed through the D.C. Circuit Court by industry groups. However, we cannot count on the courts to uphold the Constitution. After all, liberal judges hold that government can regulate inactivity, presumably, even if that activity doesn’t exist.
A global redistribution scheme that surrenders US sovereignty to foreign nations: Obama’s dream come true!
The administration begins the push for ratification of a 1982 treaty that would end America’s sovereignty on the high seas, limit our freedoms on land and speed up the global redistribution of wealth and power.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Sen. John Kerry’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Wednesday that the freedom of the sea once guaranteed by the British Royal Navy and then the U.S. Navy should be in the hands of United Nations bureaucrats in Montego Bay, Jamaica, enforcers of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) he said we must ratify.
[…] LOST would codify the “global test” Kerry uses to assess the validity of U.S. activities. For example, Communist China, a LOST signatory, contends the treaty bans the Proliferation Security Initiative under which we can stop and search ships on the high seas suspected of transporting WMDs on behalf of or for use by terrorists.
What would we do if China’s claim to undisputed sovereignty over the 1 million square miles of the South China Sea were honored by this new international body to which we would be subservient? Would the U.S. Navy quietly keep off their grass?LOST establishes an International Seabed Authority with the power to regulate 70% of the earth’s surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights, deep-sea oil exploration and even the activities of the U.S. Navy under control of a global bureaucracy.
It even provides for a global tax that would be paid directly to the ISA by companies seeking to develop resources in and under the world’s oceans.
The treaty was originally finalized in the 1980s but rejected by Reagan over concerns it would cede U.S. sovereignty to the ISA and could force the United States to hand over sensitive technology to Soviet-allied states.
“One of the more nefarious and insidious of its provisions is Article 82, which requires the U.S. to forfeit royalties generated from oil and gas development on the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles — an area known as the ‘extended continental shelf,'” notes the Heritage Foundation’s Mike Brownfield.
After losing over 40% of West Virginia Democrat primary voters to a prison inmate, Obama decides to “evolve” regarding coal.
After coming under fire for its consistent hostility to the coal industry, the Obama campaign quietly adjusted its energy policy website to include “clean coal” among the president’s energy initiatives.
The energy policy page of BarackObama.com now includes a section for “clean coal,” claiming the stimulus package “invested substantially in carbon capture and sequestration research.”
But until recently, that page made no mention of coal. Its Google cache shows a section for “energy efficiency” where “clean coal” now appears.
The change comes mere days after Obama lost 41% of the vote in the Democratic primary in West Virginia – a state heavily reliant on the coal industry – to a convicted felon and current federal inmate.
The chairman of the WV Democratic Party blamed Obama’s poor showing on his stance on coal energy. “A lot of folks here have real frustration with this administration’s stance on coal and energy,” said state Democratic chairman Larry Puccio. “They are frustrated and they are upset, and they wanted to send Obama a message.”
Critics were quick to point out the disconnect between the president’s self-styled “all of the above” energy policy and a platform that did not include the largest source of American electricity.
The campaign’s energy platform “talks about all of our energy resources and it leaves out 57 percent of our energy sources,” noted Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR).
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) accused the administration of having a “deep-seated hatred for coal and the electricity generated by coal.”
The change to the website also comes in the wake of a video showing a top administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency comparing his “philosophy of enforcement” against fossil fuel companies to Roman crucifixions.
While the revised energy platform is more friendly to America’s abundant supply of cheap coal energy, Heritage’s Nick Loris noted the administration’s continued hostility to coal.
“Even with the subsidies for carbon capture and sequestration (which the government shouldn’t be investing in nor is the technology needed), the administration has been no friend to coal,” Loris said. ” The federal government is proposing and implementing a host of regulations that will affect existing plants, the ability to build new coal-fired plants and coal mining operations – of which will raise rates on consumers and threaten grid reliability.”
View on YouTube
Back in 2008, Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters threatened to nationalize the oil industry, just as Hugo Chavez has done in Venezuela:
View on YouTube
This week, Obama went one step closer to making that Marxist dream a reality.
President Obama on Tuesday urged Congress to help strengthen federal supervision of international oil markets, amid pressure from U.S. voters to take action on rising gasoline prices.
The president wants Congress to increase penalties for market manipulation and empower regulators to increase the amount of money energy traders are required to put behind their transactions. […]
Many Democrats blame speculators for the high cost of gasoline. They would not go as far as to say that market manipulation is responsible for rising gas prices, but the officials said they wanted to curtail the ability of speculators to take unlawful advantage of oil price volatility.
At issue is the increasing role of investment in oil futures contracts by pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, exchange traded funds and other investors. Much of that money is betting that oil prices will rise. Analysts say it is possible that such speculation has somewhat inflated the price of oil.
At the same time, investors can also bet that prices will go down — indeed, speculators have been credited for low natural gas prices. Studies of the effects of speculation on oil markets indicate that it probably increases volatility, but doesn’t have a major effect on average prices.
David Sheppard at Reuters warns that Obama’s plan could increase volatility in the market, driving prices even higher:
U.S. President Barack Obama’s bid to dampen the influence of oil speculators by having regulators set trading margins could backfire, potentially making prices even more volatile and leaving crude dominated only by those with the deepest pockets.
Under Obama’s request to Congress, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) would determine how much speculators need to pay to trade U.S. crude oil futures, in theory increasing the amount when prices move too far, too fast.
But economists and traders cautioned that pushing smaller investors out of markets would only hand greater influence to the largest hedge funds and Wall Street banks. Ultimately, there may not be enough traders left to do business with oil producers and consumers looking to hedge their needs.
“Reduced liquidity often means greater volatility,” said broker Jay Levine at Enerjay LLC in Maine.
“That’s the exact opposite of (Obama’s plan’s) purpose”.
Exchange-operator CME Group, which currently sets margin requirements for the benchmark U.S. crude oil contract, on Tuesday called the president’s plan “misplaced”, and said speculation should not be confused market manipulation.
As a true Alinsky disciple, Obama’s specialty is to create a crisis through government policies, blame the private sector for the results, and then take further government control of the industry. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It should be clear by now that Obama is not the least bit concerned with how his policies are hurting the average American, so long as the “green” agenda of the “smarter than you” Leftist ruling class is implemented. Unfortunately, the facts and reality don’t match up with their Utopian fantasy.
This is what happens when you allow government to grab unlawful and inappropriate levels of power. We now have a president who is waging war against one of our largest, most crucial industries – and industry upon which our very national security depends.
In a speech last month in Miami, Fla., President Obama promoted his national energy agenda of oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear and biomass fuels.
Specifically he addressed rising gas prices, which he referred to as a “tax straight out of their (consumers’) paychecks.”
In his defense, the president boasted that “under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years.”
What the president failed to mention, however, is that the increases in domestic oil drilling are largely because of the pro-energy policies of his predecessors, Presidents Clinton and Bush, and the significant increases in production on state and private lands.
Furthermore, the president insisted that he will not “cede” green technology, solar, wind and battery power to the People’s Republic of China.
Under the president’s FY 2013 proposed budget, the politically favored “green” energy sector gets preferential treatment over the fossil fuels industries, with numerous tax subsidies, tax credits, public expenditures, procurement preferences and grants.
How do the U.S. oil and natural gas sectors fare under the president’s FY 2013 proposed budget?
In stark contrast, the administration’s FY13 budget will burden the oil and natural gas sectors with almost $86 billion in higher taxes over the next 10 years, according to estimates by the American Petroleum Institute.
Based on the Obama administration’s strident emphasis on developing “alternative” energy sources as the future of an America no longer dependent on foreign sources of fossil energy the average American would believe that the nation’s need for substantial nuclear fuel, oil, natural gas, and coal will soon be a distant memory. The reality, however, is quite different.
In 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in its Annual Energy Outlook 2012 estimated that fossil fuel consumption will decline only modestly, from 83% of total U.S. energy demand currently, to 77% in 2035.
And this estimate does not include new potential oil and natural gas reserves identified in the U.S. over the last couple of years.
Moreover, it was estimated by the DOE’s Energy Information Administration, that roughly one-third of total U.S. delivered energy is consumed by the all-important, job-creating manufacturing sector, with two-thirds of this energy-intensive manufacturing in bulk chemicals, oil refining, paper products, iron and steel, aluminum, food, glass and cement.
Additionally, total industrial demand for delivered energy is expected to increase 16% by 2035, from 23.4 quadrillion BTUs in 2010 to 27.0 quadrillion BTUs in 2035.
Therefore, the reality is that fossil fuel energy sources will continue to play a dominant role in providing stable supplies of affordable energy to America’s factories for decades to come, despite Obama’s claim that oil is the “fuel of the past.”
Just in case you thought he was even remotely interested in lower gas prices and energy independence.
Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years:
The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell notes that a planned lease sale, which the administration cancelled last year, will now be put off until at least 2018. As you might expect, Republicans were not impressed with the decision:
“The president’s actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee. The announcement “continues the president’s election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America,” he said.
How can you tell when a re-election campaign is in serious trouble?
In a theater of the absurd, Obama is trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth on oil and gas prices as his approval rating plummets.
He’s so desperate that he staged a photo-op in Oklahoma to take credit for a part of the the Keystone pipeline that he had nothing to do with, and cannot be finished as long as he continues to block it:
President Barack Obama took credit for “directing” his administration to move on the southern half of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, a portion the federal government has little involvement in and which will not connect to the northern end of the pipeline unless the administration gives the okay, which it has twice refused to do.
Republicans in Congress were quick to point out that the portion the president talked about does not require federal approval, while Obama has blocked the portion that does.
The president traveled to Cushing, Okla., on Thursday as part of his energy tour, touting what he called an “all of the above” energy policy, although he blocked the expansion of the Keystone XL pipeline – to run oil from Canada down through the United States to the Gulf Coast – in January and which would have created at least 20,000 American jobs.
The White House has confirmed that Obama lobbied Senate Democrats to vote against legislation to expedite the pipeline.
Even more bizarre, Obama claimed that he’s added pipeline “to encircle Earth and then some.” He went on to vow that he would “drill everywhere we can” before reiterating his claim that drilling won’t help to lower the price of gas:
“We are drilling all over the place,” Obama added, reading from a speech on his podium on a windy afternoon. “That’s the reason we have been able to reduce our dependence on foreign oil every year since I took office.”
While Obama has repeated in recent days that there’s no “silver bullet” that can currently ease the price at the pumps, he vowed that his administration will make oil-and-gas development a continued priority as part of a wider strategy focused on traditional and alternative energy.
“You have my word that we will keep drilling everywhere we can and we will do it while protecting the health and safety of the American people,” Obama said, speaking with no jacket or tie. “That’s a commitment that I make.”
Obama also said that the problem is that we’re producing TOO MUCH oil and gas.
It’s like we’re living in an SNL sketch.
Like many others, The Daily Oklahoman is not amused. An editorial there questioned why in a time of out-of-control federal spending, is our opportunistic president burning up thousands of gallons of jet fuel and spending millions of taxpayer dollars for nothing more than phony photo ops to further his re-election campaign. Actually, the photo ops proved to be unbelievably phony. No? You decide.
Check out this series of pics, taken in Southeast New Mexico. Gee, is that a pump jack there just behind The Petro President? Could that be an oil tanker trailer in the background, freshly painted bright red so even the most obtuse, except for color-blind, voters won’t miss the subtle message? Oh, and is that a flagpole topped by Old Glory next to the pump jack? Having spent many years in and around the oil patch, I assure you that the only things less likely to be seen in that oilfield than flagpoles or bright red tanker trailers is dunes sagebrush lizards; or, well, maybe liberal Democrats.
The prez owes somebody big time for rounding up that crowd in the foreground. Seeing’s how there aren’t that many people living in or around Maljamar, NM, and knowing that Obama and his minions aren’t the most popular folks in the county, I’d guess the audience to be either bussed-in SEIU union members or the entire Democratic Party of Lea County. Of course they could be ordinary locals which would explain why we only see their backs. If locals, they probably all have their tongues sticking out prominently, blowing raspberries of disbelief at Beloved Leader.
All Obama has to go on is obfuscation, propaganda and smear tactics. It’s going to be a long way to November.
Obama playing fast and loose with the facts? Say it ain’t so!
On Saturday, President Barack Obama claimed that under his administration, oil production in America was “at an eight-year high,” that the number of operating oil rigs had quadrupled, and that millions of acres had been opened for drilling, which were assertions that did not present all the facts, said energy experts.
While Obama’s comments were technically accurate, he was leaving out vital information that gives a fuller picture of the situation, according to the Institute for Energy Research (IER). “Of course, he’s right — to a point,” the DC-based energy group told CNSNews.com in an e-mail.
“In classic fashion, he’s using a technicality to skirt the facts and keep the myth of energy scarcity alive,” the IER email said. “The reality is that the U.S. has enough recoverable oil for the next 200 years, despite only having 2 percent of the world’s current proven oil reserves.” (Emphasis added.)
“Declaring that “the U.S. has only 2% of the world’s oil,” which Obama has done, “is akin to saying that the only gasoline we will have is that which is in our tanks,” said IER. “The president should know better, and if he does not, his secretaries of Energy and Interior should tell him.”
What the president leaves out, said the IER, is technically recoverable oil, oil we know about but cannot access due to government regulations.
“Proven oil reserves are not all of our oil resources—not even close,” the group said.
According to statistics provided by the IER, the United States has 1,442 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil.
As CNSNews.com has reported, oil production on federal lands declined in fiscal year 2011 from fiscal year 2010 by 11 percent, and natural gas production on federal lands dropped by 6 percent during the same timeframe.
The radical environmentalist agenda never sleeps in the Obama White House.
Barack Obama is now achieving a vision that environmentalist ideologues could only dream about in the 1970s: He is driving Americans out of their cars.
In the three decades since American voters threw Jimmy Carter out of office, there have been only two years when Americans did not drive their cars and trucks more miles than the year before.
The first, according to the Federal Highway Administration, was 2008, when George W. Bush was president and the nation was in a deep recession. The second was 2011, the third year of President Obama’s term in office.
But Obama may be accomplishing something more significant than presiding over a single year when Americans decreased the miles they drove. Since 1970, the FHA has tracked the “vehicle miles traveled” by Americans each year. It peaked in 2007.
That year, Americans drove a record 3.031 billion miles. In 2008, as might be expected in a severe recession, American curtailed their driving, going only 2.976 billion miles.
But the American urge to drive has clearly decelerated since Obama took office. In 2009, Americans drove only 2.977 billion miles, virtually no change from the 2.976 billion in 2008. In 2010, they drove 2.998 billion, still less than the 2007 peak. And, in 2011, they drove only 2.962 billion.
That is the fewest miles Americans have driven since 2003.
One reason Americans are driving less is obvious. On Jan.19, 2009, the day before Obama’s inauguration, the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $1.83 per gallon. Since then, it has more than doubled. On Monday, it was $3.71.
Do rising gas prices distress the leading intellects in the Obama administration? There is good reason to believe the opposite.
John Holdren is Obama’s White House science and technology adviser. In 1973, he joined with population control advocates Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich in writing an environmentalist manifesto titled “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”
It called for government action to find “alternative activities” for the auto industry.
As a mother of three young children living in an area controlled by a “green” agenda that blows our gas taxes on pricey bike trails while road fall into disrepair, deliberately limits the size and number of parking spaces, and pushes for more taxpayer-subsidized trains and public transportation at every opportunity, these kinds of anti-auto campaigns hit close to home very quickly.
I once testified at a hearing and asked my state representatives point blank whether any of the central planners who demanded more bike lanes and public transport in the suburbs had any children at all, and had they ever tried to lug around three children and a week’s worth of groceries in a bike trailer or on the Max train?
I’m sure their solution would run more along the lines of limiting family size like China so moms like me wouldn’t need a minivan in the first place, but in the meantime, Obama has a different solution:
President Barack Obama used his visit to a North Carolina truck manufacturer on Wednesday to announce a $1 billion program to promote electric and other alternative vehicles through tax incentives for consumers and federal grants to states to finance infrastructure to support them.
The “National Community Deployment Challenge” includes incentives for individuals and businesses to buy “advanced cars and trucks” through a $10,000 tax credit – up from the $7,500 allowed under current tax law.
Just what we need. More tax money taken out of struggling families’ paychecks to pay people to buy overpriced cars that most of us can’t afford and wouldn’t want anyway.
Energy Secretary Admits Lower Gas Prices Aren’t A Priority, Goal Is To Force Americans To Use ‘Green’ Alternatives
Here it is from Obama’s own Department of Energy Secretary.
This administration is NOT interested in bringing gas prices down because they want to FORCE us to use alternatives that THEY approve of.
Never mind how many poor and struggling American families their agenda hurts – the ruling class “experts” decree that it’s for your own good!
The Energy Department isn’t working to lower gasoline prices directly, Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday after a Republican lawmaker scolded him for his now-infamous 2008 comment that gas prices in the U.S. should be as high as in Europe.
Instead, DOE is working to promote alternatives such as biofuels and electric vehicles, Chu told House appropriators during a hearing on DOE’s budget.
But Americans need relief now, Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) said — not high gasoline prices that could eventually push them to alternatives.
“I can’t look at motivations. I have to look at results. And under this administration the price of gasoline has doubled,” Nunnelee told Chu.
“The people of north Mississippi can’t be here, so I have to be here and be their voice for them,” Nunnelee added. “I have to tell you that $8 a gallon gasoline makes them afraid. It’s a cruel tax on the people of north Mississippi as they try to go back and forth to work. It’s a cloud hanging over economic development and job creation.”
Chu expressed sympathy but said his department is working to lower energy prices in the long term.
If the “long term” is all that matters and all short term relief is off the table, I guess that means we can’t expect Obama from take a lesson from the time that Bush lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling and gas prices fell by 50% in just five months.
Which is the “party of no,” again?
Krauthammer: Obama’s green algae vision to replace oil
View on YouTube
This would be downright laughable if so many people weren’t suffering as a result of this kind of insanity.
“The American people aren’t stupid,” President Obama said on Thursday — as he insisted that drilling for more oil on U.S. territory is “not a strategy to solve our energy challenge.”
The president’s solution? Algae, for one.
There are no quick fixes to the nation’s eneergy problem, the president said, dismissing Republican calls for more drilling as a “bumper sticker.”
“We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline and diesel and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance — algae,” the president said at a campaign stop in Florida. “You’ve got a bunch of algae out here, right? If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing all right.”
IF???? So drilling for oil – a guaranteed, reliable energy source – is just a “bumper sticker” and “not a real solution.”
But throwing millions of dollars into an unproven, potential energy source like algae that would take literally decades to develop, produce on a nationwide scale, and convert cars to run on, is somehow a tangible solution?
Whitney Pitcher at Big Government observes that Obama’s proposal is just another way for him to line the pockets of “green” cronies in an election year:
Algae based biofuels, just like grain and wood based ethanol and solar panels, have proven to be inefficient both in their production and their consumption. A study at the University of Virginia notes that production of algae based fuels requires more water and more petroleum based energy in the process than other biofuels. In his speech, President Obama noted that algae based fuels can be used as jet fuels, but a study at MIT “found that even under optimal conditions — with dozens of refineries up and running — the price of bio jet fuel would still be twice as high as the cost of the traditionally made stuff. “ The fuel has proven to be both energy and financially inefficient.
President Obama’s plan for turning pond scum to energy may be laughable at face value, but the inefficiency of the algae based biofuel coupled with the past and potential future cronyism of the Obama administration is no laughing matter. It has already cost American taxpayers more than half a billion dollars. The only thing truly about the Obama administration is the recycled cronyism.