Where is the A2K "drill drill drill" gang?

Drilling is where the easy money is, whether we hit oil or no...

The irony of how politics can stab you in the back.

Except that isn't where the easy money is. I heard Pickens on NPR. He was talking about how he figured no one was willing to bid on 50% of the offshore leases last time they were offered because they don't think there is enough there to be cost effective. He thought it would be no more than 50%. He was surprised when it was about 10% were all that were bid on. He also made a clear case on why we can't get more than another 10% of our oil needs out of domestic drilling.

Pickens drank the acid laced Kool Aid Pelosi brought him to help seal their deal.

The first idiot from the A2K drill team shows up.

Haven't you heard? Pelosi and Kerry are two of the biggest financial losers in congress from this mess. HAHAHAHAHA. And Pelosi is sucking Pickens drill.

What does some guy with the silly name of Boone Pickens know about energy?
Bush and Cheney and the lobbyists in DC and the suits in NYC on Wall Street know about energy. Trust them to make the right decisions. Not some hick named Boone Pickens.

You missed my point, but it's not vital...

(more fools to follow shooter here, I'm certain)

Fossil fuels have run their course, big money guys aside, the time has come to look for a change of venue. Of course this has been possible for many years, but unwanted because of the loss of fortunes to oil men. Inevitably it's a waste of time to continue on a course that's leading to one great big dead end. Time has come for innovation, progressive new ideas & oil fortunes be damned.

The original poster is the lead A2k idiot.

Ive been the first on Abuzz and A2K to support the "bridge" concept of drilling and USING gas. That, along with underpinned research incentives (Similar in scope to the incentives that the oil inductry already enjoys) will ease the transition into a new energy base.
The extremes of
1Only drill on existing leases or

2Only drill, and **** the renewables

Are both lame idiotic arguments and the partisanship that surrounds this entire problem is often whats holding us up from developing newer energy and new fuels from biosolids , oil shales and organic acids, as well as PV or wind or nuclear.

We will continue sniping at each other till we will once again be owned by some foreign concern whose discovered a way to depreciate the sun.
This aint a political stance, this is our kids future.

The entire issue of LNG is part of the nearsightedness . We are basically subsidizing the buildup of huge LNG terminals that do what? THEY BRING LNG FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND JACK UP THE PERCENTAGE OF FOREIGN BASED GAS. So we are , even now, planning to lease our futures to some foreign gas source when we have huge reserves of gas right here. THe amounts of gas being discovered and proven are huge and (mostly all due to new exploration software and slant drilling technology that was underwritten by DOE govt incentives and "CRADA's") Here we have he perfect "bridge" that Pickens (and I) have been talking about. Instead, like some quick buck artist, we seem to be selling our gas future to some other batch of foreign countries.

Democrats to let offshore drilling ban expire

My only issue with new forms of energy is the efficiency? We know wind and solar don't have the same level of efficiency as oil and natural gas. It almost takes more energy to make and run them then we get out of them. The amount of money it takes to set up any type of self-sufficient solar array of huge. Sure you can cause your meter to run backwards and get money from your electrical company but when does the true payoff come back to you. When do you start to get the money back that you put out? Does it make it worth it? I don't have an issue with new types of energy I just want to make sure it's worth it before we try.

Pickens is either an idiot or somebody who thinks we are. Windmills are bullshit.

Real options include drilling for oil, coal (including the two trillion dollars worth of it in Southern Utah which SlicKKK KKKlintler sealed off for the benefit of his LIPPO buddies i.e. UtahGate), nuclear power, the power of the sea and waves, and two new possibilities which appear to be real i.e. the EESTOR super capacitor and the oil from algae approach.

I haven't seen anything else on the near horizen which looks believable, other than to note that the one word I never see in any article about future cars is "weight".

The most major thing I notice about today's small cars is that they are about 700 - 1000 lbs heavier than the small cars of 1960; in our age of synthetic materials, that is inexcusable.

Baloney. This is 100% untrue; wind and solar do not take more energy to make and run then we get out of them. Else, they wouldn't be building wind and solar farms all over the world. Where do you come up with this crap?

Jeez

Cycloptichorn

Howzabout some real numbers or links there, Baldi?

What is the efficiency level of wind and solar? When it comes to oil you have to look at what comes out of a barrel. Only 50% of a barrel of oil is used for gas, the rest is made into other products that is used in everything from asprine to plactics. The only thing we get out of solar and wind is energy. So oil dependence isn't going away anytime soon.

Best articel I could find was from 2006 and Boeing had solar cells that had 40.7% efficiency. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=46765

This is what I could find on wind. http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_basics.html#How%20many%20turbines%20does%20it%20take%20to%20make%20one%20megawatt%20(MW)

"How many turbines does it take to make one megawatt (MW)?

Most manufacturers of utility-scale turbines offer machines in the 700-kW to 2.5-MW range. Ten 700-kW units would make a 7-MW wind plant, while 10 2.5-MW machines would make a 25-MW facility. In the future, machines of larger size will be available, although they will probably be installed offshore, where larger transportation and construction equipment can be used. Units up to 5 MW in capacity are now under development.

How many homes can one megawatt of wind energy supply?

An average U.S. household uses about 10,655 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity each year. One megawatt of wind energy can generate from 2.4 to more than 3 million kWh annually. Therefore, a megawatt of wind generates about as much electricity as 225 to 300 households use. It is important to note that since the wind does not blow all of the time, it cannot be the only power source for that many households without some form of storage system. The "number of homes served" is just a convenient way to translate a quantity of electricity into a familiar term that people can understand. (Typically, storage is not needed, because wind generators are only part of the power plants on a utility system, and other fuel sources are used when the wind is not blowing. According to the U.S. Department of Energy , "When wind is added to a utility system, no new backup is required to maintain system reliability." Wind Energy Myths, Wind Powering America Fact Sheet Series, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37657.pdf .) "

They state they wind shouldn't be used for 100% of the energy because wind isn't constant so other forms of energy should also be used to provide constant energy to a home.

we live in eastern ontario and most of our eletrical energy comes from the eastern canadian and U.S. grid . we have one power staion within about 20 miles of our city and it can use either oil or gas - usually they buy what's least expensive .
during the last several months construction of large scale windfarm has been started off-shore lake ontario , a large solar collection system is being built adjacent to the power station and they have also started growing renewable energy crops that will be used for producing electrical energy starting next year .
i could even see lake ontario water flow being utilized to produce power some day .

being a layperson , it seems to me that combining ALL available sources of producing energy is not a bad way to go . in addition , much energy can be saved by industry and individuals through clever use of proper heating , air-conditioning , lighting , insulation ... ...
perhaps the eventual bill for electriccity will be higher than now , but to me it's the availability of electricity that's most important .
if energy use had not been modified over time , we would still be using horse and buggy , and steam engines , if we are lucky .
there is always great reluctance to accept something new (the expression : "we don't need any new-fangled ideas" has always had and will continue to have many adherents ) .

when the first space rocket went up (remember : SPUTNIK ) , there was great exitement . it's now become almost a ho-hum experience .
i don't think many questions have been asked about the cost - cost recovery -
usefulness ... ... of sending space ships up - it's just being done .
imo the same thing will eventually happen to new power sources - perhaps better methods will be found and implemented - but in the meantime we'll use what's available .
hbg