Archive for the 'energy' Category

How cold can I go?

Published
by
sprezzaturon
on Thursday, 23 October 2008
in electric bill, energy, humor and self-sacrifice
. 2 Comments

Sounds like the title for a brand-new game show. Ok then. Imagine that the electric company almost doubles the amount your monthly equal-payment electric bill. Not because you wastefully left doors open to heat the outdoors or had every light in every room turned on because the house was lonely. No. In fact, you had done every energy conserving action possible short of burrowing underground. Still, the electric company determined they weren’t making enough money and raise your rates regardless.

So here you are as the days and the daily temperatures grow shorter, taking in the beauty of a colorful autumn (and not colorful from the swearing when you read your electric bill) as the interior of your home cools. At what point do you finally break down and turn on the heat for at least one room for just a couple of minutes? Well, I, being that ever intrepid adventurer and experimenter, am trying to answer that very question. At the moment, my home has reached what you might say is an invigorating 60°. Of course, first thing in the morning, you might say it as inv-v-v-v-v-iga-r-r-r-r-at-t-t-t-ing. But I have found that teeth chattering has a wonderful way of warming the body … though not as quickly or satisfying as a shot of whiskey. (Ah, wouldn’t it be great to call in to work and say, “I can’t come to work yet, I’m warming up. Another pint and I should be there, boss.)

Anyway, another couple of weeks and I should have an answer for you. Here is the forecast for the next 7 days:

So, place your bets when I finally break down and turn the heat on. I must warning you that I had to live 18 months without a water heater during a messy divorce and a crazy ex. By the way, how cold you can go?

The scientists are falling! The scientists are falling!

Published
by
sprezzaturon
on Wednesday, 6 August 2008
in energy, environmentalism, global warming, hoaxes and politics
. 0 Comments

Have you heard of the famous greenhouse scientist, Dr. David Evans? If you’re familiar with the environmental movement, you probably have. From 1999 to 2005, he was consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office. Recently, he joined a long list of skeptical scientists who question the global warming hysteria. Two weeks ago, he wrote a bombshell of an article called “No smoking hot spot“. Here’s a snippet:

We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed), but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

What does this mean for the rest of us???

Mr. Obama, I’m Confused

Published
by
sprezzaturon
on Monday, 4 August 2008
in barack obama, elections, energy, gas prices, government, government waste, obama, oil and pork spenders
. 3 Comments

back-obama-scowl.jpgOn Friday, I listened as Michele Norris of NPR interviewed you, Mr. Obama. As you spoke of your noble plan to tax more money from those greedy oil companies, I couldn’t help but to be moved by your eloquent words. Actually, my car moved me. I was just enthralled by your ideas as I traveled along the road. I drive over a 100 miles a day to and from work. Naturally, I would love cheaper gas (and not just the kind you get from fast food). So, go get ‘em, Mr. Obama … I think … well, that was my mistake — to think about your ideas.

Your interview left the impression that oil companies aren’t taxed at all. Yet, I know that our thrifty governments already take almost 50% of the oil companies’ earnings. So record profits mean record revenues for you and your congressional cohorts, don’t they? Yet, the way you talked made me wonder if you guys have already squandered this year’s oil tax windfall. I realize that you made the list as one of the top pork spenders in Congress. But this isn’t one of those types of lists to be proud of or to remain on.

Let’s look at this little audacity of hope, shall we? According to the Tax Foundation, Exxon earned over $20 billion in the first quarter of this year. Out of that, government took over $9 billion. Then there is all the additional sales taxes, excise taxes, severance taxes, and property taxes that Exxon had to collect from motorists on behalf of our lawgivers — which worked out to $20 billion more in tax revenue. All-in-all, for $1 in after-tax oil profit, you politicians took almost $3. WOW!! And yet, Mr. Obama, you want to take more? Who’s being greedy? Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Or in this case, the candidate calling the oil … well, you know.

Have you forgotten that those evil oil companies take some of what’s left of their profits and pay investors — in other words, my lowly 401(k). Given Congresses’ wonderful management of the Social Security system, I’m going to need every penny of that 401(k) when (and if) I retire.

So, Sir, I’m not sure of your noble desires to relieve those ill gotten record profits from Exxon and the like. And when you put those billions of dollars into more bureaucratic programs, I’m not sure that the pennies that somehow trickle down will really benefit us poor folk of America.

Hmmmm, here’s a thought: do you think you and Mr. McCain can first put a stop to the wasteful spending that you boys and girls are doing in Congress before trying taxing the rest of us into poverty?

Gas Prices

Published
by
sprezzaturon
on Thursday, 26 April 2007
in , energy and oil
. 2 Comments
NOTE: To see the graph better, you may need to right-click on it and select “View Image”.

Something doesn’t seem right. When gas reached $62 a barrel in December of last year, I was paying about $2.25 a gallon (here in North Carolina). At the beginning of March of this year, gas teased a cheaper $61 level. Yet, the gas stations teased my wallet at a more expensive $2.50 per gallon. As far as I can tell, no new taxes have been added. But as you can see from the graph, we are paying a lot more per gallon than the refineries are paying per barrel. Anyone have any clues????

By the way, you can see this interactive graph at here. And you are not limited to just North Carolina gas prices…

Technorati Tags: , ,