Isn't the free market + short-sightedness what brought us to the energy crisis anyway? If the country was run by logic we'd have solved energy years ago. .

Isn't the free market + short-sightedness what brought us to the energy crisis anyway?

Whether they've brought us to it or not, the free market certainly hasn't done very much to help. Detroit has churned out SUV after SUV and fought tooth and nail against higher fuel standards. Detroit is about to get their asses handed to them by the Japanese because they've sat on their butts while Japan plans on releasing hybrids next year that are a mere $1900 above traditional gas engine cars. And of course, the "we want the government to leave us alone" American corporations will beg the tax payers to bail them with billions of dollars in hand-outs when that happens.

You missed the point. Fuel isn't finite, there are no practical replacements out now, and the entire market is dependent on it. When fuel is volatile, the market is volatile, the whole planet is volatile. Much of the price on everything else going up is due to fuel. Even if the bubble bursts soon, there are going to be problems.

It's amazing to think where we'd be right now if Gore won Florida. It's the ultimate what if.

I know there's people living on the edge getting fucked over financially here, but it's up to them to deal with it, c'est la vie. Chances are a lot of people on "the edge" have a reason for being there that can be eliminated to help them, like going out drinking too much, or spending too much money on clothes, or whatever else that sucks their money. I know that isn't everyone, but just saying. For most people, the biggest effect will be less money to spend on overcosumption and excess. Which isn't a terrible thing.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has reported that Amtrak - on an energy consumed per passenger-mile basis - is 18 percent more energy efficient than commercial airlines. According to DOE's Transportation Energy Data Book, Amtrak energy intensity was 2,935 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per passenger-mile and commercial airlines were 3,587. Commuter rail was 2,751 and automobiles were 3,549 BTUs. The DOE figures are from calendar year 2003, the latest available.

The Wind turbines will adversely impact the environment of the Flint Hills and the money will be going to out of state companies.

How do the turbines adversely affect the environment? I haven't heard that one.

Wind power is not new to the United State and has been especially prominent in California since the early 1980s. We can learn from some of the mistakes in California and prevent poor site location such as the Altamont Pass area east of San Francisco Bay where significant raptor (Golden Eagle) kills have occurred. Bird fatalities can be prevented if environmental assessments are completed prior to site selection that identify critical wildlife habitat and breeding areas. Recent data indicates that very few birds are killed by the newer designs of wind turbines, though a study in Kansas is ongoing at the Elk River wind farm.

Kansas Audubon Society Opposes Wind Farm

The proposed windmill site carries particular environmental significance in the region, the Audubon Society and The Nature Conservancy claim.

Observed Alan Pollom, state director of The Nature Conservancy in Kansas, "The Flint Hills are of particular note because of the rarity of the tallgrass prairie itself. It's estimated that less than 4 percent of the original tallgrass prairie acreage still exists, and roughly two-thirds of that remaining is found in the greater Flint Hills. The tallgrass prairie is considered the most altered ecosystem in North America, in terms of the number of acres lost.

"The greater Flint Hills area is by far the largest tallgrass prairie landscape on the continent, with more acres remaining than in all the other prairie states and provinces combined," Pollom further noted.

"Wind is a renewable, virtually inexhaustible, source of energy and it is available in many areas," the Kansas Audubon Society added, in a written statement. "However, native prairie and prairie landscapes are not renewable, and certainly not inexhaustible. Once plowed or destroyed, they may never be experienced in that place again."

Neither local citizens nor the local economy would benefit from the wind farm, according to The Nature Conservancy. "The first development complex proposal to go before a county planning commission in the Flint Hills is a 10,000 acre site near the small town of Rosalia in Butler County. Only two absentee landowners would benefit from lucrative leases," said Pollom.


No Better than Other Industrial Structures

Pollom emphasized that large wind turbines, which can reach well over 30 stories high, despoil the area landscape no less than other forms of industrial development.

"It's important to be thoughtful about where we choose to locate wind power facilities," said Pollom. "Wind energy is no different than any other type of industrial development; there are appropriate and inappropriate places to locate it. I think most Kansans would agree that it is sensible to pursue the environmental benefits of renewable energy in a manner that doesn't damage other equally important environmental, economic, or cultural values."


Activist Groups Clash on Issue

The Flint Hills project and, on a larger scale, wind power in general, has caused a split among environmental activist groups. The national Sierra Club has voiced its support of wind power and the Flint Hills project, with Kansas Sierra Club spokesman Charles Benjamin referring to opponents of wind power as "elitist."

Kansas Audubon Director Ron Klataske took exception to the Sierra Club criticism, telling the October 14 Greenwire, "It's sad that the Sierra Club would mislead their membership that this is green energy, when it causes destruction."

According to Greenwire, local farmers oppose the proposed Flint Hills wind farm. "I agree this a prime choice for a wind farm," local rancher Jacque Sundgren told Greenwire, "but they can build it someplace else."

No sooner do I post about the offshore drilling when a Republican goes on the radio and tells us that unless we let Big Oil drill then.

I hate trucks (tractor trailers). They are put much more pressure (wear and tear) on highway roads than cars and are involved in many more accidents than cars (adjusted for % of trucks). They also cause other problems (congestion, inefficient use of gas, accidents for other drivers, etc.) because they block vision due to their size.

Mostly, I think they are extremely inefficient use of transporting something compared to trains, but I didn't realize how wasteful they are until now. When a tractor trailor transports something from Houston to Seattle, quite often, they don't return with another load from Seattle to Houston (I naively assumed they most often did). So, they only tranport one way and the gas used to get that rig back to Houston is basically wasted (they get about 10-12 mpg when empty, 7-8 when Full). Trains don't to have carry empty loads so often, because the cars can be left at one destination or dropped off on the way.

My understanding is that the Flint Hills are sustained by migratory birds dropping seeds that renew the prairie grass. The wind farms kill substantial numbers of birds if not properly planned.

1. Modern wind turbines kill a lot fewer birds than the ones built in CA 20 years ago by design.
2. Before any wind farm is built, there is a long period of environmental studies (over 2 years). Some of the things that are analyzed are: impact on bird migration routes, impact on bats, noise pollution, impact on wildlife habitat, soil erosion studies, etc.
3. The National Audobon Society supports Wind Energy. Most of the opposition comes from local chapters. I can tell you of our company's experience with one such chapter in Western Pennsylvania. The head of the chapter is basically opposed to the concept of wind energy and has been rallying the opposition against us for the past 4 years. One of his "gems" is an anti-windpower song, that has this line, for instance: "twenty miles of towers spinning profits for their corporate powers".
4. A lot of the local opposition also comes from people who did not get a wind turbines on their property. Having a turbine on the property means getting tens of thousands of dollars a year for the landowner. Obviously the people who didn't get it are slighted, but they can't use that reason to publicly oppose a project. So they start to invent reasons. One of such landowners adjacent to our project kept insisting that building a project in that area will ruin his fishing farm, even though study after study by us and by the state commissions showed that there is no impact. What he was really trying to do is sell the pond to us.

But the oil industry says it pays millions of dollars for these leases, and that it would not make sense to purposely leave the areas untapped.

Rather, years of exploration is required before drilling can even begin. In some cases, no oil is found on leases they hold. In others, drilling the wells and building the pipelines takes years. It is especially hard now that a worldwide boom in oil exploration has pushed up the prices - and timelines - for skilled workers and specialized equipment.

"No one is sitting on leases these days," said Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute. "Those making those assertions don't understand the bidding and leasing process."

Gheit agrees that it's unlikely that hoarding is going on.

With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.

But the money doesn't lie: there's no sense in hoarding easily accessible drilling areas at this point, not with the price as high as it is.

What do you mean it doesn't make any sense? Keeping supplies under such tight control drives up prices, and higher prices have helped the oil companies enjoy the biggest profits in the history of the world. As you say, the money doesn't lie.

Besides, the oil industry argument undermines the whole justification for opening up the rest of the area for drilling. If they have leased 90 million acres, some 80% of available area, and 70 million acres of that provides no oil, and if predicting oil output in those fields is so inexact and will take years and years to even figure out, then how does the argument that opening up the remaining 20% is going to solve our problems make any sense at all?