Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Palin Explains--At Least Partially

There's been a great deal of noise over Sarah Palin's resignation. Odd, that, since none of the speculatoids had any idea of what Palin intended to do with all her free time.

Well, now we have an answer--or at least part of the answer.

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage

...There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy

Palin has a good understanding of the energy question from her experience in Alaska, and if she does nothing else, stopping "Cap-n-Tax" will suffice.

HT: FoxPolitics


Badger said...

Palin has a good understanding of the energy question from her experience in Alaska

No it doesn't. You are grading on the curve. Her knowledge is hopelessly inadequate in this area too, just not as pitiful as her knowledge in other areas.

J. Strupp said...

So does Doyle have a good understanding of the dairy industry because farmers in his state milk a lot of cows in a given year?

Badger is right on the money although I would take it a step further and say the GOP grades on a curve anyone who fits the narrative these days.

Neo-Con Tastic said...


Who are you to judge her knowledge on particular topics. including energy? What are your sources? The press?

J. Strupp said...

Let's just take her words, quoted by Dadster, for starters. Palin states (sorry, the person writing Palin's material which is approved by Palin...er...whatever):

"There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive!"

Last I checked there's only one reason our nation has even vaguely considered alternative energy sources in the past and that's price shocks spawned from scarcity. Scarcity is the only way our country will become less dependent on foreign oil. Don’t take my word for it. Ask the Saudi's what they thought of $150/barrel oil last summer. Hell even $100+/barrel oil severely impacts their long-term production targets because price shocks breed investment in oil alternatives. The Saudi's do everything in their power to avoid bubbles like we experienced last summer. And these are people who know a hell of a lot more about the oil market then former Alaskan Governors. Now "Palin" is telling us that she can decrease our dependence on foreign oil without the existence of expensive oil and/or scarcity? Somehow I have a feeling this will involve the deeply sophisticated idea of, "drill baby drill" which is a joke in and of itself.

Neo-Con Tastic said...

You have yet to answer my question.

Dad29 said...

First off, Struppster, I suspect that Doyle knows more about the dairy industry than most other Governors do, just by virtue of the fact that one of his departments concerns itself with the Ag industry.

On a scale of 1-10, (10 high), I think Doyle is probably around a 6.5 by osmosis alone. In contrast, I am about a 2.5--I know that it takes cows, refrigeration, and stainless steel vessels, and probably some other stuff...

Governor Palin certainly knows more about petroleum and natural gas than does Gov. Doyle--her state is loaded with the stuff AND she's spent a few years mano/a/mano with the petroleum industry on a variety of issues.

As to your larger point: yes, necessity is the mother of invention.

But what Palin discusses is responsible utilization of what IS available. Her specific reference to shale-oil, by the way, WILL require a good deal of 'invention,' but will NOT require re-inventing, e.g., lubricants.

It is inane to suggest that the world's entire economy can be "re-invented" to accomodate no petroleum and no coal simply by making those commodities unavailable by price manipulation--as though that sort of transition is merely a matter of engaging a bunch of Ph.D.'s with supercomputers who will come up with a solution in a few years or less.

Might I add that politicians who screw with home heating and electricity prices during a recession are politicians who have a very poor sense of "retaining office."

If not their lives...

J. Strupp said...

"Who are you to judge her knowledge on particular topics. including energy?"

...An American voter who's going to have to put up with Palin's lack of depth and understanding on most major issues until the next election.

Dadster, I don't advocate price manipulation and don't assume that we can eliminate all use of coal/gas/oil. I do know for certain that ramping up production of these resources will not make a damn bit of difference in our dependance on foreign oil and will cost us a fortune in the long run to build an energy infrastructure that does nothing to reduce domestic consumption. Nevermind the environmental issues we face long term which, of course, is glazed over completely in Palin's op-ed.

Dad29 said...


WHAT "enviro issues"? You mean new, never-before-seen/resolved "enviro issues"? From coal, gas, and petroleum?

If you don't like manipulation, you are dead-against Cap-n-Tax, right?

And...during the last 10 years, particularly during the last 5, the US (and others) have been developing battery technology, ethanol-utilization, and wind/solar techniques. The last three come at a horrendous financial cost, by the way...

All while Foreign Oil has been very available.

I DO wish that Palin had mentioned nukes, which are the perfect solution for electricity.

J. Strupp said...

....if you want to talk about horrendous cost, keep talking about nukes. Personally, I have no issue with nuclear other than the fact it will take trillions to build the infrastructure necessary to get where we want to be.....oh...and about 50 years to get the new plants up and running. And let me know what you plan on doing with the current facilities, which are older than dirt and have been duct taped together for the better part of 10 years. And also let me know how uranium prices look in a few decades as these things start getting built.

I'd also like to know who will finance these new ventures. Considering the massive cost of building a new nuke plant, I would think gummint would be the bank on this type of undertaking no?

I do not support cap and trade or any immediate tax/fee increases given our current economic environment.

Once recovery takes hold, tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, spending cuts (especially in defense) and controlling health care costs will be manditory. Other government spending programs are mostly nuts and bolts and political favors and they not worth dwelling on.

Headless Blogger said...

Uh J.,

Your ignorance of nuclear power is astounding.

There is no "duct tape." Period. These plants are cash cows and the owners invest heavily to keep them operating reliably and cranking out dirt cheap electricity to sell at "green energy prices." License renewal is being implemented at all plants and can be done indefinitely at 20 year intervals. What a country!

In reality, the current licensed reactors must meet requirements more stringent than when the plants were designed and built. Imagine the government requiring your Prius to meet tougher fuel economy and crash safety standards 25 years after it was built. That is an everyday thing in the nuclear business. The bar is constantly being raised.

Q. Who will finance the new plants?
A. Astute investors. With their guaranteed rates of return, utility companies have weathered the Obama economy quite well. Utility bondholders continue to receive their dividends and I'd stack up utility balance sheets against Pelosi, Obama, & Reid Inc. any day.

vty, hb

J. Strupp said...

Most nuke plants in this country are approaching their life expectancy. "Duct Taped" is a generality believe it or not. "owners invest in them heavily". Yes I know. Read my comment. That's the point. It takes a hell of a lot of money to keep them running considering their current age. "They are cash cows...." Yeah I believe it. They were built 30 years ago and almost no new plants have been constructed since.

Astute investors? Fine. Let me know which astute investor is gonna get a loan for a few billion dollars to build a plant that will come on line 10-20 years after getting the necessary approvals.

No one is knocking your industry. I've got buddies who work over at the plant in Red Wing. I don't worry in the least about the state of existing nuke plants in this country. Fact is, the current plants are old and new plants are MUCH easier said than done to get built and operating. The cost will be enormous.

Dad29 said...

"The cost will be enormous..."

Compared to what? Yes, if you compare to coal/natgas.

NO, if you compare to wind, solar.

It's not just the physical plant itself--it's the infrastructure, too, Strupp.

Finally: the cost of nukes has been elevated to a ridiculous degree by the anti-nuke crowd. That was deliberate.......doh.

I could make a friggin' bicycle cost $15K if I regulated them the way the anti-nukes regulate the nuke industry.

BTW, the Feds are proposing to guarantee the loans necessary to get nukes up and running.