If 25% of a commodity is removed, will the consumers' cost go up?

[Ray From Cleveland]

A freeze on NEW oil leases (currently blocked by court order) doesn't "remove" ANY oil whatsoever.

Nor is anyone suggesting that existing oil leases be ended.

Gas prices have increased because they were incredibly low due to the covid shut down, because demand is up.

Have SA and Russia increased production? They could. That would lower prices. Of course why would they do that....

Have we backed off on our refusal to buy Venezuelan oil? That would also lower prices.

It doesn't really work that way. The fact is under Trump even in our best economy in 50 years, we never hit $3.00 a gallon nationally. Under Dementia with an over 6% unemployment rate we have.

The difference? Trump is pro-energy and the communists are anti-energy. Besides the drilling and exploration halt on public lands, he also shutdown the Keystone. When asked about the gasoline pipeline hack, he said that was more a private matter than a government one.

Fuel investors read the writing on the wall. Gasoline and oil are big money commodities, and making the slightest mistake could cost you thousands. The smart money is on prices increasing until 2024, and that's exactly what we are going to see.

 

[Lesh]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

You and the girls in the Democrat locker room are just poking each other away and giggling like crazy.

The point is that when they suspend new leases, that means the 25% is frozen and as Heath said will "eventually" be eliminated. I'm not like you, I actually read his OP.

And we both know Biden would never have approved the end of the "pause" in leases. Stop lying

It does NOT mean 25% is frozen dumbass.

Existing oil leases remain untouched

 

[Lesh]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

Of course wind turbines reduce carbon foot print. They have a carbon foot print when they are produced and installed, as does any other energy producing machinery.

The difference is that after installation they have virtually no carbon foot print.

Obviously not true of fossil fuel plants

You can continue to spew falsehoods but facts remain

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Our gasoline costs are dependent on how much oil companies make available rather than how much is available to them. It isn't like they're already operating at anywhere near full capacity. Your linked article immediately presents a pretty simple explanation of how capitalism generally works......

Oil companies generally don't hold off on oil. They produce when it's available for them to produce it.

 

[NightFox]

Our gasoline costs are dependent on how much oil companies make available rather than how much is available to them. It isn't like they're already operating at anywhere near full capacity. Your linked article immediately presents a pretty simple explanation of how capitalism generally works......

Oil companies generally don't hold off on oil. They produce when it's available for them to produce it.

That’s not accurate, they produce when market prices make it economically viable to produce, otherwise they leave the oil in the ground.

 

[struth]

That is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.

um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happening

When has this happened?

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketing

Last year we had a pandemic so the market for gasoline was way down ... Oil leases had nothing to do with that either.

The Keystone sludge bound for our Free Trade Zone is still going to the refineries. That source has NOT been eliminated.

The ppb had to go up or our domestic producers whould go out of business because US lift costs are the highest in the world.

The only real change in the market is that in 2020 Trump placed sanctions on Venezuela so we started buying more crude oil from Russia.

of course not, we had the leases...demand dropped

i am talking about this year

 

[Dragonlady]

That is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.

um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happening

When has this happened?

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketing

Last year we had a pandemic so the market for gasoline was way down ... Oil leases had nothing to do with that either.

The Keystone sludge bound for our Free Trade Zone is still going to the refineries. That source has NOT been eliminated.

The ppb had to go up or our domestic producers whould go out of business because US lift costs are the highest in the world.

The only real change in the market is that in 2020 Trump placed sanctions on Venezuela so we started buying more crude oil from Russia.

The USA has never bought crude oil from Russia. Russia is under sanctions. Rex Tillerson negotiated a deal for Exxon to buy Russian oil, but that was kiboshed by the Obama Sanctions when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

 

[surada]

That is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.

um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happening

When has this happened?

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketing

Last year we had a pandemic so the market for gasoline was way down ... Oil leases had nothing to do with that either.

The Keystone sludge bound for our Free Trade Zone is still going to the refineries. That source has NOT been eliminated.

The ppb had to go up or our domestic producers whould go out of business because US lift costs are the highest in the world.

The only real change in the market is that in 2020 Trump placed sanctions on Venezuela so we started buying more crude oil from Russia.

The USA has never bought crude oil from Russia. Russia is under sanctions. Rex Tillerson negotiated a deal for Exxon to buy Russian oil, but that was kiboshed by the Obama Sanctions when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

It says that since Trump placed sanctions against VZ we are buying from Russia.

The U.S. Imports Record Share Of Russian Oil Despite Tensions | OilPrice.com

U.S. refiners have turned to Russian oil and petroleum products to fill the gap that sanctioned Venezuelan crude and drastically reduced OPEC shipments have left in U.S. imports, despite the energy standoff between the United States and Russia

oilprice.com

 

[struth]

That is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.

um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happening

When has this happened?

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketing

Last year we had a pandemic so the market for gasoline was way down ... Oil leases had nothing to do with that either.

The Keystone sludge bound for our Free Trade Zone is still going to the refineries. That source has NOT been eliminated.

The ppb had to go up or our domestic producers whould go out of business because US lift costs are the highest in the world.

The only real change in the market is that in 2020 Trump placed sanctions on Venezuela so we started buying more crude oil from Russia.

The USA has never bought crude oil from Russia. Russia is under sanctions. Rex Tillerson negotiated a deal for Exxon to buy Russian oil, but that was kiboshed by the Obama Sanctions when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

obama gave Exxon a reprieve

 

[Dragonlady]

That is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.

um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happening

When has this happened?

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketing

Last year we had a pandemic so the market for gasoline was way down ... Oil leases had nothing to do with that either.

The Keystone sludge bound for our Free Trade Zone is still going to the refineries. That source has NOT been eliminated.

The ppb had to go up or our domestic producers whould go out of business because US lift costs are the highest in the world.

The only real change in the market is that in 2020 Trump placed sanctions on Venezuela so we started buying more crude oil from Russia.

The USA has never bought crude oil from Russia. Russia is under sanctions. Rex Tillerson negotiated a deal for Exxon to buy Russian oil, but that was kiboshed by the Obama Sanctions when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

It says that since Trump placed sanctions against VZ we are buying from Russia.

The U.S. Imports Record Share Of Russian Oil Despite Tensions | OilPrice.com

U.S. refiners have turned to Russian oil and petroleum products to fill the gap that sanctioned Venezuelan crude and drastically reduced OPEC shipments have left in U.S. imports, despite the energy standoff between the United States and Russia

oilprice.com

Thank you. He sure kept that on the down low.

 

[struth]

That is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.

um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happening

When has this happened?

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketing

Last year we had a pandemic so the market for gasoline was way down ... Oil leases had nothing to do with that either.

The Keystone sludge bound for our Free Trade Zone is still going to the refineries. That source has NOT been eliminated.

The ppb had to go up or our domestic producers whould go out of business because US lift costs are the highest in the world.

The only real change in the market is that in 2020 Trump placed sanctions on Venezuela so we started buying more crude oil from Russia.

The USA has never bought crude oil from Russia. Russia is under sanctions. Rex Tillerson negotiated a deal for Exxon to buy Russian oil, but that was kiboshed by the Obama Sanctions when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

It says that since Trump placed sanctions against VZ we are buying from Russia.

The U.S. Imports Record Share Of Russian Oil Despite Tensions | OilPrice.com

U.S. refiners have turned to Russian oil and petroleum products to fill the gap that sanctioned Venezuelan crude and drastically reduced OPEC shipments have left in U.S. imports, despite the energy standoff between the United States and Russia

oilprice.com

Thank you. He sure kept that on the down low.

we have the most transparent market...it was either russia or venezuelan...6 percent...not much

just glad our refiners had work during the pandemic

 

[surada]

That is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.

um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happening

When has this happened?

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketing

Last year we had a pandemic so the market for gasoline was way down ... Oil leases had nothing to do with that either.

The Keystone sludge bound for our Free Trade Zone is still going to the refineries. That source has NOT been eliminated.

The ppb had to go up or our domestic producers whould go out of business because US lift costs are the highest in the world.

The only real change in the market is that in 2020 Trump placed sanctions on Venezuela so we started buying more crude oil from Russia.

The USA has never bought crude oil from Russia. Russia is under sanctions. Rex Tillerson negotiated a deal for Exxon to buy Russian oil, but that was kiboshed by the Obama Sanctions when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

It says that since Trump placed sanctions against VZ we are buying from Russia.

The U.S. Imports Record Share Of Russian Oil Despite Tensions | OilPrice.com

U.S. refiners have turned to Russian oil and petroleum products to fill the gap that sanctioned Venezuelan crude and drastically reduced OPEC shipments have left in U.S. imports, despite the energy standoff between the United States and Russia

oilprice.com

Thank you. He sure kept that on the down low.

we have the most transparent market...it was either russia or venezuelan...6 percent...not much

just glad our refiners had work during the pandemic

Trump Made Secret Efforts to Lift Russia Sanctions

Former officials' comments about Trump's attempts to lift sanctions come just days after reports Jared Kushner sought a back channel with Moscow.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That’s not accurate, they produce when market prices make it economically viable to produce, otherwise they leave the oil in the ground.

Not really. Given most of our energy comes from private land, it's private land owners that hold off. They'll sit on it until the price increases which is why it's important to have fuel come from public lands.

 

[surada]

That’s not accurate, they produce when market prices make it economically viable to produce, otherwise they leave the oil in the ground.

Not really. Given most of our energy comes from private land, it's private land owners that hold off. They'll sit on it until the price increases which is why it's important to have fuel come from public lands.

LOLOL.. Oil companies buy mineral rights to drill on private land.. Has NOTHING to do with landowners "holding out" ..

 

[struth]

That is why right wingers blame democrats; not because it did but because it could.

um no the things discussed in the OP did happen and are happening

When has this happened?

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

when xiden cut the oil leases...and prices of fuel are skyrocketing

Last year we had a pandemic so the market for gasoline was way down ... Oil leases had nothing to do with that either.

The Keystone sludge bound for our Free Trade Zone is still going to the refineries. That source has NOT been eliminated.

The ppb had to go up or our domestic producers whould go out of business because US lift costs are the highest in the world.

The only real change in the market is that in 2020 Trump placed sanctions on Venezuela so we started buying more crude oil from Russia.

The USA has never bought crude oil from Russia. Russia is under sanctions. Rex Tillerson negotiated a deal for Exxon to buy Russian oil, but that was kiboshed by the Obama Sanctions when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

It says that since Trump placed sanctions against VZ we are buying from Russia.

The U.S. Imports Record Share Of Russian Oil Despite Tensions | OilPrice.com

U.S. refiners have turned to Russian oil and petroleum products to fill the gap that sanctioned Venezuelan crude and drastically reduced OPEC shipments have left in U.S. imports, despite the energy standoff between the United States and Russia

oilprice.com

Thank you. He sure kept that on the down low.

we have the most transparent market...it was either russia or venezuelan...6 percent...not much

just glad our refiners had work during the pandemic

Trump Made Secret Efforts to Lift Russia Sanctions

Former officials' comments about Trump's attempts to lift sanctions come just days after reports Jared Kushner sought a back channel with Moscow.

www.newsweek.com

hahaha still pushing the debunked pre-Mueller report propaganda....funny stuff.

Moreover, it has nothing to do with your prior link.

 

[kaz]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

You and the girls in the Democrat locker room are just poking each other away and giggling like crazy.

The point is that when they suspend new leases, that means the 25% is frozen and as Heath said will "eventually" be eliminated. I'm not like you, I actually read his OP.

And we both know Biden would never have approved the end of the "pause" in leases. Stop lying

It does NOT mean 25% is frozen dumbass.

Existing oil leases remain untouched

No shit, that doesn't contradict what I said, dumb ass.

You clearly are confused, re-read the link and then my comment and see if you can figure it out. Sound out the words if you have to. If that doesn't work, call a friend or whatever you have to do to understand the discussion

 

[kaz]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

Of course wind turbines reduce carbon foot print. They have a carbon foot print when they are produced and installed, as does any other energy producing machinery.

The difference is that after installation they have virtually no carbon foot print.

Obviously not true of fossil fuel plants

You can continue to spew falsehoods but facts remain

Yet another discussion you aren't following. You're a day late and a dollar short, Pedro

 

[FA_Q2]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

 

[NightFox]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

 

[NightFox]

That’s not accurate, they produce when market prices make it economically viable to produce, otherwise they leave the oil in the ground.

Not really. Given most of our energy comes from private land, it's private land owners that hold off. They'll sit on it until the price increases which is why it's important to have fuel come from public lands.

Where are you getting this information Ray?

BTW 90% of our domestic oil production comes from private and STATE OWNED land and private land lease holders have no incentive to “hold off” since they don’t bear any of the costs for production and get paid on the basis of up front fees and royalties thus “holding off” would gain them nothing.

Producers on the other hand aren’t going to pump oil out of the ground when the costs of pumping, storage and transport are greater than what the market is paying for oil, after they’d be losing money if they did.