OT: Bush's Energy Plan

More Fossil fuels
More refineries
More nuclear Plants
Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)

Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
vision or any attempt to create a long range
plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.

"ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
news:1114627762.21f49400026aab5ac94ef63f680294a6@teranews...[color=blue]
> More Fossil fuels
> More refineries
> More nuclear Plants
> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>
> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
> vision or any attempt to create a long range
> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.
>
>[/color]

The truth is that his plan is being well received outside of the political
circles.

We haven't seen any new refinery capacity going in for the past 30 years in
this country. During that time there has been a serious drop in the demand
of gas (oil) for any individual automobile, but a huge increase in the
number of automobiles, so there is a higher overall demand for refined oil,
but no new refineries. Not only have we as consumers made major strides in
consuming less in our cars, but we have also made significant strides in
making less pollution from our cars. I know that my car in the 70s sucked up
gas and spewwed alarming amounts of pollution, and today my car meets the
most stringent standards of pollution on the planet, and sips gas at the
miserly rate of nearly 30 miles per gallon.

But even if I use 1/3 the gas I used in 1970, there are way more than 3
times the number of cars, so there is a net increase in demand. With this
increase, there has been a consolidation of refiners, and a reduction in the
number of refineries. We are closing refineries and consolidating refiners
while the net demand for gasoline is going up.

Lots of electricity is made from burning petroleum products, including
natural gas among others. If we can switch that demand away from the fossil
fuels and into nukes, then we can reduce the demand on oil, and our
dependance goes down.

All of the major car companies are working on alternative fuel programs,
most notably hybrid and fuel cell technology, so the "wink wink" is a crock
of shit.

Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We are
beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed refineries
here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
usual ... you're full of baloney.

ToMh wrote:[color=blue]
> More Fossil fuels
> More refineries
> More nuclear Plants
> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>
> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
> vision or any attempt to create a long range
> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.[/color]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:47:11 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We are
>beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed refineries
>here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
>usual ... you're full of baloney.[/color]

Don't confuse him/them with the facts, Philip.

I love it when the fringe element that puts the kabosh on refineries
complains so loudly about fuel prices.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We are
> beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed refineries
> here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
> usual ... you're full of baloney.
>[/color]

Why no incentives for alternative fuels? This plan will just keep the
price of oil low enough so there will be no incentive for change.
My plan would have included real incentives even mandates
for alternative fuels. The real problem is dependence on fossil fuels, not
how to get more in the short run. Dickheads like yourself only care about
the next few
years cause you'll be dead by then and you could care less about the future.
No shortage of crude? Then why drill for more? How is building more
refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?
I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan (except
for nuclear)
but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through his term
and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We are going to have
to come up with a real solution
sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the Republicans
in charge.



[color=blue]
> ToMh wrote:[color=green]
>> More Fossil fuels
>> More refineries
>> More nuclear Plants
>> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>>
>> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
>> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
>> vision or any attempt to create a long range
>> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
>> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

"ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
news:1114633166.cd32873191055ff490334940efefc6f2@teranews...[color=blue]
>
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=green]
> > Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We are
> > beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed refineries
> > here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
> > usual ... you're full of baloney.
> >[/color]
>
> Why no incentives for alternative fuels? This plan will just keep the
> price of oil low enough so there will be no incentive for change.
> My plan would have included real incentives even mandates
> for alternative fuels. The real problem is dependence on fossil fuels, not
> how to get more in the short run. Dickheads like yourself only care about
> the next few
> years cause you'll be dead by then and you could care less about the[/color]
future.[color=blue]
> No shortage of crude? Then why drill for more?[/color]

Because the crude is in a part of the world where things are very volitile,
and the supply of crude can be cut off.





How is building more[color=blue]
> refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?[/color]

This isn't going to reduce dependence, it's going to give us the ability to
actually make more gas. If we can make more gas, then the price can come
down. You have to read the answer (above) to see how we plan on reducing our
dependence on Middle East oil.




[color=blue]
> I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan (except
> for nuclear)[/color]

You should be interested to know that France produces about 70% of its
electricity from nuke plants.



[color=blue]
> but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through his term
> and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We are going to have
> to come up with a real solution
> sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the[/color]
Republicans[color=blue]
> in charge.
>[/color]

The truth is that the automakers are already working on alternative energy,
and the alternatives that they have already come up with can't be produced
fast enough. I am not suggesting that hybrid technology is the end of the
line when it comes to alternative sources, but the few hybrids that are
being made have long lines of customers waiting for delivery.

Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to explore.
Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas, but we already have
the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I suppose it
wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver natural gas
to your fuel cell powered car or truck.

ToMh, 4/27/2005, 2:49:05 PM, wrote:
[color=blue]
> More Fossil fuels
> More refineries
> More nuclear Plants
> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>
> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
> vision or any attempt to create a long range
> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.[/color]

My Toyotas that are made in America will like more energy.

--
For your convenience I have included forums that you may find
interesting.
alt.discuss.politics,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.congres
s,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.conservative,alt.politics.democrat,a
lt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.liberal,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.p
olitics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.republicans,alt.politics.world

"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:PrudnahxHsnha_LfRVn-1w@ez2.net...[color=blue]
>
> "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> news:1114633166.cd32873191055ff490334940efefc6f2@teranews...[color=green]
>>
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=darkred]
>> > Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We
>> > are
>> > beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed
>> > refineries
>> > here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage of crude. As
>> > usual ... you're full of baloney.
>> >[/color]
>>
>> Why no incentives for alternative fuels? This plan will just keep the
>> price of oil low enough so there will be no incentive for change.
>> My plan would have included real incentives even mandates
>> for alternative fuels. The real problem is dependence on fossil fuels,
>> not
>> how to get more in the short run. Dickheads like yourself only care about
>> the next few
>> years cause you'll be dead by then and you could care less about the[/color]
> future.[color=green]
>> No shortage of crude? Then why drill for more?[/color]
>
> Because the crude is in a part of the world where things are very
> volitile,
> and the supply of crude can be cut off.
>[/color]
[color=blue]
>
>
>
>
> How is building more[color=green]
>> refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?[/color]
>
> This isn't going to reduce dependence, it's going to give us the ability
> to
> actually make more gas. If we can make more gas, then the price can come
> down. You have to read the answer (above) to see how we plan on reducing
> our
> dependence on Middle East oil.
>[/color]
Only by a little, and we still are dependent on fossil fuels.[color=blue]
>
>
>
>[color=green]
>> I really don't have any problem with any single point of the plan (except
>> for nuclear)[/color]
>
> You should be interested to know that France produces about 70% of its
> electricity from nuke plants.
>[/color]
I'm actually not entirely against nuclear power, as long as they come up
with
and acceptable waste disposal plan, but I haven't seen one yet that isn't
more politically motivated that scientifically sound. Even so , Nuke power
would be a little more palatable if this administration supported green
alternatives as fervently as it does fossil fuels and nuclear power.
[color=blue]
>
>
>[color=green]
>> but without a long term solution, its just a plan to get through his term
>> and put more money in the pockets of his true bosses. We are going to
>> have
>> to come up with a real solution
>> sooner or later, but it's obvious it will never happen with the[/color]
> Republicans[color=green]
>> in charge.
>>[/color]
>
> The truth is that the automakers are already working on alternative
> energy,
> and the alternatives that they have already come up with can't be produced
> fast enough. I am not suggesting that hybrid technology is the end of the
> line when it comes to alternative sources, but the few hybrids that are
> being made have long lines of customers waiting for delivery.
>[/color]
That's true, but the government could speed things along by settings goals
and incentives for alternate fuels, like Biodiesel, ethanol and Hydrogen.

[color=blue]
> Personally, I see fuel cells being used in homes as something to explore.
> Fuel cell technology does need hydrogen, or natural gas, but we already
> have
> the delivery infrastructure in place for most homes in America. I suppose
> it
> wouldn't take very much to adapt the infrastructure to deliver natural gas
> to your fuel cell powered car or truck.
>[/color]
I think eventually we may get there, but the more we keep cheap
gas around the longer things like fuel cells, Biodiesel, ethanal will
not have the incentive to progress. That's my point about Bush's
plan, not that it won't help in the short run, but that it does nothing
to wean us off fossil fuels.
[color=blue]
>[/color]

Eric Dreher wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:47:11 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We
>> are beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed
>> refineries here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage
>> of crude. As usual ... you're full of baloney.[/color]
>
> Don't confuse him/them with the facts, Philip.
>
> I love it when the fringe element that puts the kabosh on refineries
> complains so loudly about fuel prices.[/color]

Speaking of that, how come The Media is not charged the oil companies with
price gouging this time around? Eh? What epiphany has The Media had?

ToMh wrote:[color=blue]
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:3%Rbe.693$GQ5.208@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=green]
>> Well dickhead ... your plan ... oh wait .... you don't have one. We
>> are beyond saving ourselves into new energy. We have only closed
>> refineries here in CA for the past 35-40 years. There is no shortage
>> of crude. As usual ... you're full of baloney.
>>[/color]
>
> Why no incentives for alternative fuels?[/color]
snip

Because there is no shortage of crude oil to be pumped from Mother Earth.

Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."

Jeff Strickland wrote:[color=blue]
> "ToMh" <Teelhumm@hotm.com> wrote in message
> news:1114633166.cd32873191055ff490334940efefc6f2@teranews...
>[color=green]
>> How is building more
>> refineries going to lessen our dependence on the MidEast for Oil?[/color]
>
> This isn't going to reduce dependence, it's going to give us the
> ability to actually make more gas. If we can make more gas, then the
> price can come down. You have to read the answer (above) to see how
> we plan on reducing our dependence on Middle East oil.[/color]

Another way to reduce dependence on the Middle East is to ..... reduce the
Middle East.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I love it when the fringe element that puts the kabosh on refineries
>> complains so loudly about fuel prices.[/color]
>
>Speaking of that, how come The Media is not charged the oil companies with
>price gouging this time around? Eh? What epiphany has The Media had?[/color]

None whatsoever. They've just changed their "scapegoat du jour".

Why blame Big Oil when you can divert attention to Bush and DeLay?

So very predictable, transparent, and disingenuous.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0e1i5jk19ur5g000@news.readfreenews.net...[color=blue]
> ToMh, 4/27/2005, 2:49:05 PM, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> More Fossil fuels
>> More refineries
>> More nuclear Plants
>> Oh, BTW drive more fuel efficient cars (wink wink)
>>
>> Bush's plan is clearly designed for the benefit of the
>> oil and nuclear power plant companies and lacks any
>> vision or any attempt to create a long range
>> plan for energy independence. It's obvious where
>> his allegiances are, and it's not the American people.[/color]
>
> My Toyotas that are made in America will like more energy.
>
> --
> For your convenience I have included forums that you may find
> interesting.
> alt.discuss.politics,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.congres
> s,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.conservative,alt.politics.democrat,a
> lt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.liberal,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.p
> olitics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.republicans,alt.politics.world[/color]

Do they talk about Toyotas in those forums?
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
>unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."[/color]

An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
by major media EXCEPT the military.

The one that actually works.


------------------------------------------------
The DNC - Building a bridge to the 20th Century.

"Eric Dreher" <ericd@cox.nét> wrote in message
news:5t0071d9qtki9q7168vrksjfdsr0jq5hic@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:09:34 GMT, "Philip"
> <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >Furthermore, your ilk has not learned that goverment has been wholly
> >unsuccessful in mandating solutions that meet "demand."[/color]
>
> An interesting aside: Virtually no government program is criticized
> by major media EXCEPT the military.
>
> The one that actually works.[/color]

The way it is funded it's not surprising it works. If only one could
overcharge the way they do in the civilian sector.