Veto and Drill!

The Corner ^ | 5/8/08 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Dawnsblood]

Nancy Pelosi chanted "Veto and Drill", "Veto and Drill" in caricaturing the threatened presidential veto of windfall oil company taxes and desire to drill in ANWR and elsewhere. But all that might sound, in fact, good to most Americans. With the world's largest reserves of coal, after creating the nuclear power industry ex nihilo, and with billions of oil still under our soil and waters, it makes no sense to produce less energy while blaming and taxing those who produce what we have, rather than drilling, digging, and saving, as we find ways to transition to the alternate energies. The problem is not just oil, but importing oil at $120 a barrel that is bankrupting us as much as it is enriching the wrong people.

This would seem to be an explosive campaign issue (if the candidates disagreed), especially if someone could offer a rough estimate of how many billion barrels of oil are in no-go areas, times them by $120 a barrel, and then compute how many trillions in national wealth we leave untouched while we pay our enemies for the commensurate alternative. I could accept the argument that it will take years to get the oil out of Alaska, the coasts, or other federal lands and therefore is not worth it (the classic argument for stasis), if we could be convinced it will not take even a greater amount of time to get solar and wind technology cheap and efficient enough to produce the bulk of our energy needs.

A postscript: I'm not sure that, ecologically speaking, drilling oil in about 2000 acres in the north of Alaska is all that different from dotting our mountain ridges and coasts (ask the Kennedys et al) with enormous windmills or creating vast acres of solar panels throughout our fragile deserts or covering our roofs with panels and pipes and assorted gadgetry.

[netmilsmom]

“Veto and Drill” sounds good to me!

It may be a quick fix and a band-aid, but our gas shot up another 20 cents yesterday and I need something.

[woodbutcher]

I agree.

The conservative war cry should be “VETO and DRILL”.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

Veto and drill!

[mvpel]

There’s nothing wrong with putting panels and gadgetry on our roofs, aside from the fact that it’s extremely costly at present, with a payback time of several years, or much, much longer in places with cheap electricity.

[NonValueAdded]

VDH is spot on, again! He is on quite a roll lately. Imagine if we had a presidential candidate that could keep up.

"... Where is my Reagan? Don't say it's John McCain Where have all the conservatives gone?" (one of Shanklin's finest)

[.cnI redruM]

Veto and Drill? As a Playa would put it...”oooOOH, YEAH!!”

[The Great RJ]

"... it makes no sense to produce less energy while blaming and taxing those who produce what we have, rather than drilling, digging, and saving, as we find ways to transition to the alternate energies."

Someone finally gets it. This should be a primary platform plank of the Republicans and shouted from the house tops.

[live+let_live]

The British tried to insult the Colonists with a slur: “Yankee Doodle Dandy”. Turns out we kind of liked it.

Pelosi tried to insult the Pres. with a slur: “Veto and Drill”. I suspect a similar reaction.

“Veto and Drill” - The winning campaign slogan for the 2008 Presidential election. The only problem, the Republicans are boobs. Maybe the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party will pick it up.

[steel_resolve]

Agreed. I think the idea of forcing the electric company to purchase back my excess capacity is a delicious thought. Not sure why so many blanch when they hear the words “alternative energy”

[mvpel]

Even with current costly panels, I’d have a break-even of about 9 years with a commercially-installed ~3kw system, which a friend of mine paid $15,000 for. Over the past 12 months I’ve spent nearly $1,700 on electricity. And Nanosolar is planning a residential panel in the near future, which should cut that time down a good bit.

[Ann Archy]

How did the Eco-Geeks get to be MORE POWERFUL than the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES????? HOW DID THIS HAPPEN???? This needs to be changed.....the eco-geeks are costing us MILLIONS and MILLIONS and loss of National Security! Time to take them down!!!

[Gilbo_3]

'alternative energy' is fine, mandating technology advances [if we had them, they wouldnt be advances] while ignoring current supplies is suicidal...

whats gonna happen when 'big oil' tires of the taxes and regulations required to produce BILLIONS of gallons of gas/diesel/heating oil etc ???...[ bean counters have a minimum profit margin] and pulls their $$$ out, and buys into something that is less hateful to 'windfall profit' ???

like cattle futures or real estate ???

we aint seen nuthin yet, fuel costs are the winning strategy for our enemies, and our masters are playin into it...

hildy, hussein, capt mccain...we R screwed...

LFOD...

[KarlInOhio]

Not sure why so many blanch when they hear the words “alternative energy”

Because, in general, if it was economically viable then we would already be doing it. Do I like the idea of turning free sunlight into electricity? Yes I do. However, if I spread out the cost of putting up the solar panels and compare that to current and likely future electric prices it isn't nearly so free.

When Congress starts pushing alternative energy plans, it is either for the reasonable purpose of getting over the otherwise economically difficult hump of initial production, or to get votes and bribes from those who directly benefit at the expense of the rest of us. Most of the time it either starts or at least ends up as the second option. Ask yourself "Would ethanol be so strongly pushed by Washington politicians if Iowa wasn't the first presidential caucus?"

I'm going to have some major heating and AC work done soon. In light of the increased gas and electricity prices, I will at least be looking at the price for a geothermal heat pump. If I can toss $1000 extra to save energy I'll do it. If it costs $10,000 I won't.

[steel_resolve]

I don’t agree with forced mandates. I just think that if I had the extra money, I would definitely invest in wind or solar - the cost benefits (over a long enough timeline) are obvious and indisputable.

[sportutegrl]

Hey Nancy, how does raising taxes on oil companies lower prices again? I can’t seem to remember covering that in Economics 101.

[sportutegrl]

Hey Nancy, how does raising taxes on oil companies lower prices again? I can’t seem to remember covering that in Economics 101.

[Gilbo_3]

I have no disagreement with using various fuel sources...for myself the determining factor is economic viability as well...

when the tech comes far enough [ie 'do-able' $$$wise] then those resources will become the norm and gasoline will be alternative...artificially raising oil prices to reach this end is socialism on parade, and the premeditated undoing of our Republic as the beacon of light...

Hell I live on breezy high ground and would love for wind/solar to be more affordable and user friendly...Im also a wrench turner and have no desire to toss 25 years of knowledge in the toilet for an unproven 'star wars' tech to be rammed down my throat in place of an oil infrastructure that currently exists and has plenty of supply for the foreseeable future...the only barrier is a willingness of the 'representatives' to access it...

[Publius6961]

Veto and Drill!

Dear Nancy Ironface...

Tax and Spend!
Government makes three times as much on a gallon of gas as Exxon!
Tax and Spend!
Government makes three times as much on a gallon of gas as Exxon!
Tax and Spend!
Government makes three times as much on a gallon of gas as Exxon!
Tax and Spend!
Government makes three times as much on a gallon of gas as Exxon!
Tax and Spend!

[Publius6961]

Agreed. I think the idea of forcing the electric company to purchase back my excess capacity is a delicious thought. Not sure why so many blanch when they hear the words “alternative energy”

Because, once you look behind the curtain, alternative (green) energy costs even more than what the oil cartel is charging us.

Other than that, no problem.

[Publius6961]

Even with current costly panels, I’d have a break-even of about 9 years with a commercially-installed ~3kw system, which a friend of mine paid $15,000 for.

If you think you can run a house on 3Kw in most of the United States, you need to go back to high school.

Any useful system is at least $30k, and if you think that is not a maintenance-intensive proposition, there's no hope for you. Unless, of course, you don't need to keep a job.

[uglybiker]

Gee. She makes it sound like that’s a bad thing.

[Publius6961]

the cost benefits (over a long enough timeline) are obvious and indisputable.

No they are not.
If they were we would have several "alternative energy" Bill Gateses already!

And to state the obvious, I have no interest today in the succes of alternative energy in 2250...

Just saying.

[uglybiker]

Don’t forget the Commies calling Margret Thatcher the ‘Iron Lady’.

[mvpel]

You’re right, I didn’t do the math properly.

[PsyOp]

The conservative war cry should be “VETO and DRILL”.

Too bad our candidate believes in global warming and thinks polar bears can't swim.

Perhaps he can negotiate a deal with mexico, more oil production in exchange for amnesty for illegals. A barrel of oil for each one or something...

[steel_resolve]

The reason that we don’t have a large scale implementation of alternative energies (Wind/Solar/Geothermal/etc) is that the price point is still too high for mass adoption. What if I discovered natural gas on my property and decided to pay an engineering company to put a well on it. Are you saying I will never recoup my initial investment, even if it was considerable?? How is it any different with sun or wind??? Yes the timeline would be longer, but to say the initial investment cannot be recouped is wrong.

Just sayin...

[Publius6961]

Are you saying I will never recoup my initial investment, even if it was considerable?? How is it any different with sun or wind???

No.
I would never make such a silly statement.

And speaking of gas, its value is real, worth what the current market charges and has worked for a hundred years.

The comparison is absurd.

[thackney]

How is it any different with sun or wind???

It is below the other investment choices without tax payer subsidy.

[steel_resolve]

My comments are directly tied to the economics of the energy. Inserting caveats like taxpayer subsidies only serves to confuse the argument.

[thackney]

Without subsidies, would wind and solar be getting investment?

And if so, why are they still getting subsidies?

[steel_resolve]

Me:the cost benefits (over a long enough timeline) are obvious and indisputable.

You: No they are not. If they were we would have several "alternative energy" Bill Gateses already!

So which is it? Do they pay off over a long enough timeline or do they not? Get your story straight dude

[ncpatriot]

Veto and Drill

Catchy phrase.

[steel_resolve]

Here, let me dumb it down for you

An energy concern costs me x
It is projected to save me y
At point of purchase, x > y At some point along the timeline x=y

After that y > x

Notice that in the above, I do not muddy the argument with subsidies or the efficiencies of current energy solutions vs. alternative. I never called for subsidies for alternative or ever said they could compete with conventional tech. For the record (and let this be the end) if one can afford to make the switch to wind/solar or geothermal, they can at some point recoup their investment and become self sufficient (OFF THE GRID) Okay man?

[thackney]

You are ignoring the time value of money. By your math rate of return is irrelevant.

If you invest at all, you must understand that is false.

[Publius6961]

Inserting caveats like taxpayer subsidies only serves to confuse the argument.

So is pretending that you're unaware that their current value is not equal.
Dishonest, even.

[Publius6961]

So which is it? Do they pay off over a long enough timeline or do they not? Get your story straight dude

OK; I will use small words.

Comparing current reality with future speculation is a fool's errand.
I have seen the fools chasing the speculation for at least two generations.
The Bill Gates' of the "green" energy future are pipedreams with openended reality checks.
The reality of the value of gas and oil has been true for over a hundred years.

Still confused?

[Ditto]

What if I discovered natural gas on my property and decided to pay an engineering company to put a well on it. Are you saying I will never recoup my initial investment, even if it was considerable?? How is it any different with sun or wind??? Yes the timeline would be longer, but to say the initial investment cannot be recouped is wrong.

You may never 'recover' your initial investment on a gas well if a.) there is not enough gas. b.) The well were to suddenly go dry, which can happen -- c.)You only considered the cost of drilling the well and not the cost of a pipeline/right-aways etc necessary to get that gas to market. -- or d.) The price of gas takes a dive in out years.

There is no guarantees in any business, least of all that one.

BTW... getting that 'product to market' is one of the biggest factors in utility sized wind and solar. Since both are very land intensive and tend to be in remote locations, building transmission lines at several million dollars per mile is a major consideration.

The lefty Gov of Kansas has stopped Sunflower from building a new 21,000 MW coal fired plant out in Western Kansas. What she inadvertently killed as well was a proposed wind farm that was planned to share a new transmission line that was to be constructed for that new coal fired plant. The wind farm by itself can never produce enough MWs to justify the costs of a new transmission line.

[steel_resolve]

From Ask the Builder.com:

Residential geothermal systems take the biggest cost hit. Even still, if you have great soil, you might recapture this extra cost in about two to five years. After that, you are making money while your neighbors send extra money each month to the fuel oil or local utility companies.

The cost savings you might achieve depend on two things: Where you live (the harshness of the climate) and the type of heating and cooling system you currently use. The most expensive traditional heating and cooling system to operate is an electric resistance heating system coupled with standard air conditioning. Look at the table below to see the potential savings. It should open your eyes! The values in the table were provided by the Environmental Protection Agency.

[steel_resolve]

Not true. I never claimed that any cost included (or should include) built in subsidies.

[steel_resolve]

SEE POST 39. WHEN YOU CAN DISPUTE THAT COME AND SEE ME.

[thackney]

What does Geothermal have to do with Wind or Solar Power?

[steel_resolve]

geothermal is not an alternative energy? Alternative to conventional natural gas? Maybe it has been around long enough that you don’t consider it one. Maybe you’ll feel the same way about wind and solar some day.

[thackney]

Geothermal has a small enough usage to be considered alternative.

But you didn't write about economics of geothermal or alternative in general. You wrote specifically about wind and solar.

In the right locations, geothermal is economic and why it is used before subsidies were available.

[junkman_106]

Good response “Publius6961”, suggest “mvpel” go to www.backwoodssolar.com and order their catalog (it’s FREE)and do a little more research.