Print 149 comment(s) - last by Spuke.. on Jun 13 at 4:37 PM

Regulatory hurdles still remain however

Voters in Elk Point, South Dakota, have approved the construction of the nation's first new gasoline refinery in 32 years. To be built by Hyperion Energy, the refinery will process 400,000 barrels a day of Canadian tar sands crude into low-sulfur diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel. Supporters say the plant, which will be the world's cleanest, will reduce dependence on Mideast oil, as well as help to lower gas prices.

The new refinery means billions of dollars of capital investment, along with thousands of high-paying jobs, and a tremendous economic boom to the tiny community. Even still, the battle to approve the refinery was a closely-fought one, with environmental groups spending tens of thousands of advertising dollars to persuade residents to vote against it. The final vote was 3,932 in favor, 2,832 against -- a massive turnout in this small town of 10,000 residents.

While oil prices are responsible for the majority of gasoline's increase, part of the problem is restricted refinery capacity. With the nation's gas being produced by an increasingly rickety network of aging refineries, a substantial percentage of U.S. demand is now refined overseas. Gasoline is more expensive to ship than oil, which raises prices and creates potential supply bottlenecks. A shortage of refinery capacity was also responsible for gasoline shortages after Hurricane Katrina struck, when the temporary closure of several refineries caused prices in some southern states to more than double.

Approval for the plant is not yet absolute, however, as legal action continues to bar construction from beginning. According to Ed Cable, the leader of one of the groups opposing construction, "We have strategies in place to slow or delay all the permit processes." The first such is a legal challenge to the county's zoning approval, filed in state court.

Hyperion must also win the approval of state and federal regulators, a process that requires over 1,000 separate permit applications and is expected to take several years.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Do it
By Scorpion on 6/4/2008 12:46:00 PM , Rating: 5
I'm all for weening off of oil and developing alternative energies, but I'm for this. It will boost SDs economy. It sits in a void in geographic refinery locations. And a new refinery will give refreshing experience to the industry which hasn't done this in 37 years. This will help the knowledge at existing refineries. It's in a more secure geographic location. If anything were to happen to an existing one, then it's not so bad to have a new one around. I don't think we need to start building new refineries everywhere though.

We still need to focus most of our energy towards alternate fuel discovery and deployment.

RE: Do it
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 1:03:05 PM , Rating: 5
We need more than one new refinery. We shouldn't be importing refined fuel at all. We used to do nearly all the world's refining. But since we can't build new refineries, thats changed. We should be importing crude and using it at home. Better yet, lets tap our own oil so we don't have to import it.

I say start the building. 5-10-15 refineries. However many we need to not be constrained by our refining capacity. Also start building nuclear plants. So we need less to begin with. Oh wait those kill the environment to if they explode(human casualties aren't important to hardcore environmentalists).

RE: Do it
By smitty3268 on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: Do it
By masher2 on 6/4/2008 1:35:50 PM , Rating: 5
> " Just because there a few crazy nutjob environmentalists doesn't mean anything"

The people espousing those positions aren't just a few at the fringe; they're those leading major environmental groups and those widely respected by the environmental community.

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
-- Prince Phillip, speaking for the World Wildlife Fund

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States
-- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund.

We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!
-- Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue.

Capitalism is destroying the earth
-- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental
-- David Foreman, founder Earth First!

If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy
-- Amory Lovins

RE: Do it
By Lerianis on 6/4/2008 1:40:39 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately, you are right. A lot of the so-called 'environmentalists' in this world are nothing more than sociopaths and eugenists in disguise.

RE: Do it
By Pirks on 6/4/2008 3:19:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, masher, just wow... I'm printing this right now to hang it on my office wall, this is the best thing I ever read on DT, no kidding

One question though - who is Amory Lovins?

RE: Do it
By masher2 on 6/4/2008 3:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
Founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an environmental advocacy group.

RE: Do it
By lj535i on 6/5/2008 5:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
I would propose that this description of RMI is substantially off the mark, but before trying to put it in my own words, I'd suggest reviewing:
Core Principles...
Mission Statement...

Now for my own words, I think "environmental advocacy" implies a less balanced approach than I think RMI has striven for over the years.

RE: Do it
By Mystery Meat on 6/4/2008 5:05:49 PM , Rating: 5
More great environmentalist quotes:

The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.
—Kenneth Boulding, originator of the “Spaceship Earth” concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects…. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.
—David Foreman, Earth First!

Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.
—Pentti Linkola

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.
—John Shuttleworth

What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
—Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.
—Economist editorial

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS
—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
—Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

Cannibalism is a “radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.”
—Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

Poverty For “Those People”
We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.
—Carl Amery

Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby.
—Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.
—Lamont Cole

If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered.
—Gar Smith, editor of the Earth Island Institute’s online magazine The Edge

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.
—Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.
—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.
—Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.
—Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.
—Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
—Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
—Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.
—Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling”, 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. … This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.
—Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

RE: Do it
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 5:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
Classic. At least one guy will admit the truth about global warming. That if its a fraud that they should pursue it anyway because thats whats best for us.

And I love how the pre-70s quotes say it was the cooling that was going to kill us.

RE: Do it
By shockf1 on 6/6/2008 8:05:16 AM , Rating: 2
And I love how the pre-70s quotes say it was the cooling that was going to kill us.

well you know that the first theory is usually the correct one!!

RE: Do it
By FoxFour on 6/4/2008 10:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
—Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

This is a very wise remark, and should not be lumped in with the rest of those quotes.

Energy conservation is inherently a smart idea. The implementation is where we tend to err.

RE: Do it
By masher2 on 6/4/2008 11:19:31 PM , Rating: 4
"Riding" one issue to accomplish a wholly different goal is inherently dishonest, and is never a "smart idea".

RE: Do it
By Bruneauinfo on 6/4/2008 10:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
everyone should die... kill each other, and yeah...

so who wants to publish my book?

RE: Do it
By lj535i on 6/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Do it
By Cheapshot on 6/5/2008 1:05:09 PM , Rating: 1
If we were to take every individual living on earth and gave them a 3 foot by 3 foot area to stand in - the entire population would fit into an area approximately 22 square miles.

RE: Do it
By joex444 on 6/5/2008 7:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I can't resist. I'm calling bullshit.

Figure 6 billion = 6x10^9 people, and I'm being conservative here.

Now, give them all 9 sq ft. You therefore have 54x10^9 sq ft. Also, use the fact 1 mi = 5280 ft. Then 1 sq mi = 5280^2 ft^2. So, let's divide. 54x10^8 / (5280^2) = 1936 sq miles.

Interestingly, the state of Delaware has 1954 sq miles.

RE: Do it
By JonnyDough on 6/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Do it
By JonnyDough on 6/5/2008 5:43:12 PM , Rating: 1
I also wanted to add that nature will run it's course with us as well, regardless of how we try to fight disease. How? We can't control the weather. We get rid of nature, and nature gets rid of us. The universe is beyond the mighty control of mere mortals. Ancient people knew this, they feared the gods of the sea and the gods of the sun...

Today it seems that we only fear our government, terrorists, the economy, and our neighbors.

RE: Do it
By Spuke on 6/13/2008 3:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Today it seems that we only fear our government, terrorists, the economy, and our neighbors.
I think excessive fear is our greatest problem. We fear WAY too much and react accordingly. We need to simply stop and think before we act.

RE: Do it
By superkdogg on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Do it
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/5/2008 5:32:14 PM , Rating: 4
I doubt anyone will ever read this as I am a day late and dollar short on this thread....

quote -Capitalism- I don't know that it's destroying the earth, but a buck at all costs 99 cents or less seems to be driving a lot of policies that we will actually live long enough to regret.

Not really correct at all. A buck does not drive capitalism – the peoples needs drives things to be build which may or may not do damage to the planet (depending on how its handled). Capitalism is just the most efficient way to meet the peoples needs. The buck is just a by product that the ambitious person receives for meeting or fulfilling the people needs.

quote -Phasing out humanity would solve every social and ecological issue. It's not an elegant solution, but if you really put it simply, we've caused all kinds of problems and solved almost none of them. If we don't get to solving, eventually there will be serious, unavoidable trouble.

Having all environmentalist nuts jump off the cliffs of Dover will also end the environmental worry some hype that happens all the time (were to cooled or to hot), however it might not be the best solution. Earth has been here for millions of years and unless it blows up will be here for millions more – humans are a flash in the pan, we need to do whatever we need to do to survive. P.S. The planet creates more problems then humans....Do you think the dinosaurs destroyed their environment by all the methane gas they produced (by eating and farting) or was it the Earth and environmental changes that it created and had happen to it?

quote - Lastly, the disaster of free/cheap energy. I don't know about disastrous, but think about exactly how much the world's economic stability relies on energy.

Nothing has ever been free (ever). Even a caveman had to loss time learning to build a hut in order to go hunt or fish (cost – lose technical advancement and/or education). Some one will have to foot the bill for energy – this is not star trek were people work and do their jobs for no pay but enjoy whatever they wish to do. It's a nice thought but will never work – no incentive for humans to push themselves further to be better then the next guy. If you question me, look to anyone you know who gets free money (not counting school kids). You know them, their Parents or Grandparents give them 10, 20, 100 thousand(s) a year, or have an enormous trust (a Paris Hilton would be one, but there are thousands not so famous and not as much money but enough to not have to work another day in their life.) Do these people push themselves to be the best for society or do what is best and more fun for themselves? Humans by nature are very selfish (have to be others wise we'd give away a last bit of food when we were starving to death). We just need to create a society that understands this has tries to work hard to keep things fair. So far capitalism does the best job of being fair. Fair to try, do, succeed, think about, and even fair to fail in.

RE: Do it
By JonnyDough on 6/11/2008 4:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
I'm eating Cheerios with bananas and strawberries cut up into it. Mmm.

RE: Do it
By smitty3268 on 6/4/2008 7:19:32 PM , Rating: 5
I still don't see how those quotes are different than a well-respected religious leader saying that God sent hurricane Katrina as punishment for the gay people living in New Orleans.

At a certain point, you just have to let go and accept that other people are going to be crazy (as long as they don't actually start going around murdering people, of course).

RE: Do it
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/5/2008 6:10:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote - I still don't see how those quotes are different than a well-respected religious leader saying that God sent hurricane Katrina as punishment for the gay people living in New Orleans.

A truly well-respected religious leader would never make such a statement. A popular religious leaders that miss-leads his people, or wants to gain the attention of the press for their own profit or gains will make this kind of statement.
A truly well-respected religious leader might say something like: only God knows To whom, where, when, what and how God's action will effect man kind. So we do not know if God sent the hurricane or if he just let it happen and we for sure have no clue why he would send it (if he were to send one). Hence the popular phrase: “God works in mysterious ways"

I do agree with you, going to have to accept that there are crazy people out there.

RE: Do it
By Spuke on 6/13/2008 3:36:08 PM , Rating: 3
I do agree with you, going to have to accept that there are crazy people out there.
It becomes a problem when the crazy people help to create the nations future.

RE: Do it
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/5/2008 11:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
I think they are actually responsible for the energy crisis. Protesting the construction of refineries and nuclear power plants has prevented some workable solution being put in place over the last 30 years. If we had more nulear power plants, we could have more electric cars or plug in hybrids without having to burn more fossil fuels.

Think glabally, act within your local variable scope has killed a lot more trees than it has saved. =)

RE: Do it
By callmeroy on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Do it
By 777 on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Do it
By bighairycamel on 6/4/2008 4:54:06 PM , Rating: 1
I like to remain politically neutral, but I have to ask.... why exactly is it the democrats fault we have $4/gal gas? I'ld love to see the logic that backs this up, considering it's JUST as easy for a liberal to point the blame stick at the republicans.

RE: Do it
By porkpie on 6/4/2008 6:14:24 PM , Rating: 3
How is it the democrat's fault? Hmm, maybe its because they're the ones who have repeatedly stopped up from drilling for more oil in ANWR or anywhere else in the US. The ones who put in the EPA regulations that have prevented us from building any new refineries.

One thing Masher didn't mention is whats important about 1976, the year we built our last refinery. 1977 was the year the "New Source Review" of the Clean Air Act went into force, which critics warned would prevent any new refineries from passing muster. No one listened at the time, but it turned out they were right.

RE: Do it
By sinful on 6/4/2008 9:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, maybe its because they're the ones who have repeatedly stopped up from drilling for more oil in ANWR or anywhere else in the US.

Yeah, all those evil Democrats stopped any drilling in ANWR...Democrats like senator JOHN MCCAIN:

As far as ANWR is concerned, I don’t want to drill in the Grand Canyon, and I don’t want to drill in the Everglades. This is one of the most pristine and beautiful parts of the world. - John McCain

Oh wait, McCain is a REPUBLICAN.

And he backs up his words with his votes:

So before you start pointing fingers at the "eviilll dumacrats", maybe you should look to those in your own party.
Especially the ones you're nominating for president!

Because a true Republican would have no qualms about drilling in the Grand Canyon....

RE: Do it
By 777 on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: Do it
By masher2 on 6/4/2008 11:23:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "Democrats like senator JOHN MCCAIN:"

So McCain -- and a few other Republicans -- broke ranks with the party and voted with the Democrats to block drilling in ANWR? That doesn't change the essential facts here. The failure to use ANWR -- and other domestic deposits -- is the fault of the Democratic Party, plain and simple.

The Republicans are guilty of many things, but attempting to blame them for ANWR is far off the mark.

RE: Do it
By feraltoad on 6/4/2008 3:19:24 PM , Rating: 5
I can understand the "not in my backyard" arguments against building a refinery or an oil field. What I don't understand is why do people stick their heads in the sand and pretend it won't happen somewhere else. The demand will be filled, and it is only a question of when and who. Whom do you think will a regulate a cleaner refinery the US, China, or a 3rd world country ran entirely by corporations? The next to best case scenario for those concerned with the environment is having the refinery in the US so at least it can be policed.

RE: Do it
By dever on 6/4/2008 3:43:34 PM , Rating: 1
a 3rd world country ran entirely by corporations
Example please? If indeed a country was "run by corporations" then, in fact, the corporations would not be anything like what we understand to be corporations... they would be Government, plain and simple. I guess you might put nationalized industry into this label.

Here's the difference, government has the power to control you through force or threat of force. This may be the case for "corporations" in other countries, but they cease to be "corporations" as we know it.

I have several acquaintances who "own corporations" but they are simply individuals who are trying to produce a product or service that can be sold at a price that is mutually agreeable to both them and their customer.

Contrast this with government that simply seizes the assets of the populace to perform it's objectives. Not only that, but government typically does not produce anything of benefit, but rather just consumes scarce resources.

While I agreed with most of your post, I'm confused as to why you want to perpetuate the "evil corporation" mantra.

(Note, corporations can be "evil"... but this only occurs when they obtain some special restrictions or subsidies from government, allowing them to profit without the consent of their customers. Hence, government is the source of any corporation's "evil" nature. Unfortunately, this happens way too often.)

RE: Do it
By Polynikes on 6/4/2008 5:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, this is not enough, but it's a step in the right direction. And it's about time.

RE: Do it
By 16nm on 6/4/2008 5:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
I know you are mocking environmentalists, but the truth is that modern nuclear power plants are very safe. Meltdown is very unlikely thanks to the great level of automation used.

RE: Do it
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 5:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Hence why I'm mocking them.

RE: Do it
By Hiawa23 on 6/5/2008 9:36:15 AM , Rating: 1
I am really concerned about this. I don't know what the answer is short term, but there has to be something the government can do about this to relieve prices, cause I see many airlines having to cut employees, remove planes, security, food & everything in between cause with the fuel prices rising many just can't continue doing business profitably, even after passing the costs to the consumer.

Look at the automobile industry, or I should say, look at the American companies, cause the companies like Toyota, Honda are doing okay, but GM has to damn near make a complete overhaul on how they do business & the vehicle lines they offer which is also hurting our economy & you are telling me there is nothing anyone can do.

If you are in the top 10-20% of earners in the country the high gas, food, energy cost may not affect you as much as the people in the middle or bottom 1/2 earners in the country where all their expenses has gone up, while there pay has increased or decreased due to companies cutting back hours, then you are seriously hurting.

Everytime there is an event that happens in another country like a hurricane or something or like what happened in China the US is quick to run to their help, but when something happens here like Katrina, the country moves at a snails pace, & this bothers me. Look at our Education system, where they continue to have to cut this or that, & many students can't get loans to go to college. It costed me almost $20k to finish college of which I will not pay off my loans until 2012-13, & it sucks that the powers to be has allowed this to hapen to us. Most of us went to college to have better lives, not actually be worse off than our parents, & my fiance & I both have degree in business management, a 10 year old daughter & it's a struggle with everything rising, & I am very worried about my home, cars & other stuff, but our govt has no answers for us other than, tough it out. Well, if things continue, most of us Americans are going to have to tough it right out of a home, & most of our possessions.

I know Obama's wife took alot of critcism about her being proud of our country for the first time, but I agree with her, I am not proud of what the powers to be has allowed to happen to our country. I thought the American dream was to get a college degree & I would be okay, that I would be able to provide a prosperous future for my daughter, but as things get worse in the economy I am more worried than ever before, so if this refinery& others are some sort of an answer, plus the biofuels, & drilling, I am all for it, cause it's a damn same that the supposed greatest country in the world has go over & beg Arabs to increase production of oil to give us some relief.

RE: Do it
By porkpie on 6/5/2008 11:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
If you define "seriously hurting" as "I can't afford a $750,000 house on my $60K/year salary" then yeah a lot of people of hurting. Otherwise no. People aren't starving, and the country isn't even in a recession, much less a depression.

RE: Do it
By JonnyDough on 6/11/2008 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
People aren't starving? That's where you're dead wrong. America has a policy of feeding itself first. Around the world many many many families are feeling the economic crunch from high oil and food prices. America exports more food than what we consume I think. Maybe you should delve in and do more research on this for us, since you're obviously oblivious about it.

RE: Do it
By Spuke on 6/13/2008 3:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
People aren't starving, and the country isn't even in a recession, much less a depressio
He's talking about the US, hence the usage of "the country" in his sentence.

RE: Do it
By Livingston3 on 6/6/2008 10:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
There is more oil in Colorado alone than the total of all of other oil discovered (so far) on the planet, and then there is more in Wyoming, Utah and Alaska. Hundreds of years of oil in Colorado alone, economically producible at $40 per barrel.

If we want to become less dependent on foreign oil, then we must produce it here. Just changing the laws to allow US companies to access this oil will instantly crash the world price of oil ... because it is driven so much by speculation today. This oil is owned by US taxpayers. It can be produced in an environmentally responsible way, and Canada is already doing so and selling it to us. The federal government must lease the lands and collect fees from oil companies who will produce this oil. Those fees must then be used to change the energy infrastructure in the US over to nuclear power + geothermal power + hydroelectric power + solar power for stationary electricity generation and hydrogen/oxygen fuel cells for powering cars/trucks/etc. This infrastructure change will take years and billions of dollars, but these dollars do not need to be generated at taxes on Americans. This revenue would be leases on land and royalties paid by oil companies to the US government for the benefit of American taxpayers.

“The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection.

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel

RE: Do it
By JonnyDough on 6/11/2008 4:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, if we're the last one holding the hot potato...maybe we'll, win big money?

RE: Do it
By smitty3268 on 6/4/2008 1:05:33 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Nobody wants a refinery in their back yard, but the country desperately needs a few new ones right now.

RE: Do it
By DigitalFreak on 6/4/2008 1:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody wants a refinery in their back yard

Apparently the folks in this SD town do.

RE: Do it
By rykerabel on 6/4/2008 1:50:51 PM , Rating: 5
I do, especially if it means I can get a higher paying job.

Environmentalist apparently have no concern for the environment. They fight new refineries in America that have to meet strict environmental controls which means that instead a new refinery is built overseas that has fewer controls and thus does much more environmental harm.

Don't belive the hype. Environmentalist do NOT care about the environment, just their wallets.

RE: Do it
By Ringold on 6/4/2008 2:18:58 PM , Rating: 3
It was in The Economist recently that the worlds largest refinery is being built in India presently, and it plans to export a lot of its product to the US.

Does it match our environmental standards? Possibly, but I doubt it.

If America doesn't want jobs, private industry has no patience. They'll go where they can get things done.

RE: Do it
By VahnTitrio on 6/4/2008 5:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have Flint Hills Refinery a couple miles to the south and the Ashland Refinery across the river. Neither produces much in terms of pollutants, but they put off a lot of steam in the winter which everyone swears is pollutants. I have a tough time convincing people because they don't notice the absence of steam in the summer.

The only complaint really is the smell. but if you can put the plant a mile or two away from any residence it's usually far enough away that you don't smell it. They're actually pretty cool to look at when it's dark, it looks almost like a city skyline.

RE: Do it
By omnicronx on 6/4/2008 1:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
Many people do not realize that one of the reasons gas prices are so high, is because of the lack of refineries in North America. You can import all the oil you want, but if there are not enough plants to process it, then we are pretty much SOL.. I welcome this with open arms.. although I wish us Canadians would keep our own oil for once.. I am sick and tired of having higher gas prices then the US, when we produce more oil then we consume.. (20% of American oil comes from Canada, more than any other country.. including Saudi Arabia..)

RE: Do it
By dschneider on 6/4/2008 2:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct, and we import even more Petroleum than crude oil.

Some of these numbers although not surprising show just how bad it is.

RE: Do it
By LordanSS on 6/4/2008 6:28:26 PM , Rating: 3
I feel your pain...

I live in Brazil. We are self-sufficient in oil and refining... we've even been exporting some lately, but prices are sky high for us as well.

I filled my car's tank, the gallon cost the equivalent of US$ 4.70, which is nuts considering we import none of that. Our prices are inflated that way because of two things: first, taxes (about 50% of gasoline price are taxes); second, they follow the variations of international oil prices. So, doesn't matter if we produce all we can consume, if the price goes up worldwide, they up our prices as well.

Obviously we have other options... many cars here are called "flex" because they can use different fuels. My father bought a new Fiat Siena, and it can use ethanol, gasoline and natural vehicular gas. Ethanol (overall) is cheaper than gasoline here, but only because it's subsidized (there is a tax on gasoline prices that serves to keep ethanol prices lower.... but media never ever mentions that heh).

If you take a look at Venezuela though, with their loving Chaves president... they keep gas prices incredibly low for the internal market. If it's wise or not, I don't know.

By rdeegvainl on 6/4/2008 12:44:53 PM , Rating: 3
According to Ed Cable, the leader of one of the groups opposing construction, "We have strategies in place to slow or delay all the permit processes." The first such is a legal challenge to the county's zoning approval, filed in state court.

I guess if we don't get our way, lets go ask another parent, or grandma until we do.

RE: Why?
By JDub02 on 6/4/2008 12:59:20 PM , Rating: 3
Typical strategy for the enviro-nazis - screw what the people want, they're going to cry to the courts and politicians until they get what they want.

I find it amazing that there's over 1,000 different permits that are required. If I was the SD governor, I'd waive them all and let them start construction tomorrow. The refinery is going to be great for that state.

RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 1:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
If you really think about all the high paying jobs that come with things like building/working at refineries and nuclear plants, it's mind blowing that people would be against those positives to our economy.

We'd be adding hundreds of jobs in the civil engineering, mechanical engineering, and nuclear engineering sectors. I've got a friend who is a nuclear engineer.

RE: Why?
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 6/4/2008 1:59:12 PM , Rating: 3
This is why no one has built a new refinery in 32 years. Luckily, it is a lot easier to get approved for expanding an exsisting refinery.

Everyone thinks more refineries are a good idea, but no one ever wants one within 100 miles of their house. I certainally wouldn't want to be close enough that I had to smell the sulfur everyday.

Those aren't all State permits, I think most are Federal. I'm pretty sure that Congress passed a bill in the last couple years the cuts the permit process down to 3 years instead of 7. I believe that it takes about 10 years (maybe more that far North) to build one once they are approved.

RE: Why?
By masher2 on 6/4/2008 2:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "I believe that it takes about 10 years (maybe more that far North) to build one once they are approved"

Once ground is broken, this refinery is slated to be complete and operational within four years.

RE: Why?
By callmeroy on 6/4/2008 3:08:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well I think "withing 100 miles.." is a bit extreme, but I do get your point I wouldn't want a refinery a mile from my house that's for certain.

That's why I think the best places for the US to build them is in those mid-west states, I don't know how many of you live in the mid-west but for those that have never been there -- land, land, land and more land as far as the eye can see.

I've been to SD alone several times (Sioux Falls area mostly) and WOW what a dramatic difference from my home area of NJ/PA. So much open space its incredible.

I'd think you could easily build a refinery in such a state and have miles of area around you with no buildings or homes.

As a side note I still get a kick out of Sioux Falls idea of "rush hour".....I was there with an ex about 10 years ago and she's complaining this traffic is horrendous ...I busted out laughing, "you call this traffic?".

It told her to never visit NYC then. ;)

RE: Why?
By theapparition on 6/5/2008 11:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
NJ has some of the lowest gas prices in the country. There are tons of refinaries in NJ already.

RE: Why?
By Keeir on 6/4/2008 1:04:54 PM , Rating: 5
The worst part, they are not really acchieving thier goals at all.

For example, in this case, the new refinery would take oil from a very close source (Canada oil sands to South Dakota is a haul, but better than across the sea) and then be consumed mostly likely in Chicago...

The demand curve for gasoline is so steep that essentially US consumers will consume vast quanitities of gasoline, regardless of the price! All that blocking refining capacity here in the US has accomplished is to shift the refining to countries that may or may not have adequate enviromental regulation. In the end, Enviromentalists may have actual caused greater harm to the enviroment by blocking new, safe, clean, etc refineries from being built where more "responsible" individuals will actively try to limit thier pollution outputs.

RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 1:10:40 PM , Rating: 3
Enviromentalists may have actual caused greater harm to the enviroment by blocking new, safe, clean, etc refineries from being built where more "responsible" individuals will actively try to limit thier pollution outputs.

It's quite simple really. In a country like China, they'd get ignored, locked up, or shot for trying to do what they're able to do here.

RE: Why?
By PAPutzback on 6/4/2008 1:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well the idiot has a name - Ed Cable. Someone find his dumbass and knock some sense into him. Preferably with a big stick of Hickory. Hell, even if it doesn't lower the gas price it will employ americans, bring in tax money and might even bring about some improvements in tech.

RE: Why?
By Diesel Donkey on 6/5/2008 11:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
With full respect for your statement, I do have to ask: would you feel the same if a big, smelly, noisy refinery were to be built in your backyard? This Ed Cable person might be a little shortsighted, but I'm guessing that he has a good reason to be doing what he's doing.

RE: Why?
By Spuke on 6/13/2008 3:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
but I'm guessing that he has a good reason to be doing what he's doing.
Many mean well while they're sending you to hell.

RE: Why?
By Ringold on 6/4/2008 2:23:15 PM , Rating: 1
The worst part, they are not really acchieving thier goals at all.

It's been obvious to me for a long, long time. I don't believe such a huge number of people are truly so warped to act that irrationally. What, then, is the logical conclusion? Their goals must not be the ones they openly profess.

What are their true goals? Reference Mashers quotes. Their goal is push us back to caves. If you take that to be their objective and look at their words and actions, then suddenly not only does it all make sense, they look brilliant.

RE: Why?
By Keeir on 6/4/2008 4:16:18 PM , Rating: 3
I don't believe such a huge number of people are truly so warped to act that irrationally.

Almost everyone in this world acts irrationally when viewed from point of classical economic theory. I think that although some key figures and leaders of the enviromental groups may truely want the cave situation, the vast majority of activists and supportors truely believe that thier actions reduce world-wide pollution levels and protect the enviroment in other ways. They simply don't have the knowledge, training, or logic to understand the straight forward consquences of thier actions. Similar to how vast numbers of people think taxing corporations is somehow different then taxing individuals or how somehow government spending is "free" and not related to individal tax levels.

By rasmith260 on 6/4/2008 2:08:45 PM , Rating: 1
I really don’t get all these rants against environmentalist, while some of them are crazy you seem to be missing the most important point of all. It’s not wise for our country to be dependent upon any other country for anything if we want to remain strong. Should we wait until the oil runs out in 30-40 years before we start to do something?

How embarrassing was it to see our president begging and kissing the Saudi’s asses to get them to increase their production and they basically slapped him in the face. Building a new refinery is nice, but it doesn’t address the real problem which is our dependency on a resource that’s non renewable and belongs to someone else. A resource that’s become ever increasingly popular around the world in countries like China & Russia who have army’s and nuclear weapons and the will to use them if we ever tried to take control of the Middle-East’s oil for our own needs.

As bad as things are now I think in the long run this will actually make our country better, because Americans are learning some very tough lessons that if we’d remembered from the last oil crisis we probably could’ve avoided this time around. Gas guzzling SUV’s, Suburban homes built 30 to 40 miles away from ones job that causes people to have to drive 60 to 80 miles a day, energy saving legislation shot down, public transportation left to die, should’ve and would’ve never happened if gas prices were what they are today. Let’s be honest, this is a mess of our own making, we can’t blame anyone else.

By masher2 on 6/4/2008 2:18:27 PM , Rating: 5
> "It’s not wise for our country to be dependent upon any other country for anything"

So it would seem to make sense to start exploiting some of the oil we have in ANWR, off the Florida coast, and elsewhere in America, eh? Unfortunately, such measures are always blocked.

Right now, China is drilling for oil 30 miles away from Florida, while we're barred from doing anything:
legislators are fuming that Cuba is opening up its continental shelf for oil and gas exploration while most of the U.S. continental shelf outside the Gulf of Mexico, which extends 200 miles from shore, has been off limits for drilling since the early 1980s, the New York Times reported...

By rasmith260 on 6/4/2008 2:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ultimately what I’m saying is we need to move away from oil altogether. How this can be accomplished, I’m not smart enough or have enough knowledge on the subject to say, but I do know that oil is a dead end.

By masher2 on 6/4/2008 2:34:02 PM , Rating: 3
Oil was a dead end 150 years ago...but failing to exploit it then would have meant missing out on the Industrial Age, and all the benefits and advantages thereof.

Since 1965, we've discovered 5 new barrels of oil for every 3 we've burned. In school during the mid-1970s, I was taught the planet would be out of oil within 30 years. Totally dry. Now, more than 30 years later, our oil reserves are the largest they've been in human history -- 50 years or more, with most of the planet -- the deep sea and polar regions -- still fully unexplored.

Yes, oil will one day run out. But it's not the immediate problem many people phrase it as.

By arazok on 6/4/2008 2:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
It's anything but a dead end.

There enough Oil in N.America to sustain the US economy for over 60 years. If you look at all the oil in the world, there is likely 150+ years of oil out there for the whole planet to use. And even when THAT runs out, coal can be converted to oil, and there are insane amounts of it.

It makes NO sense to run screaming for the hills about an energy shortage that is not going to happen for 150, 200+ years.

I think the fundamental issue with the environmental movement is that it assumes that resources are scarce, and the planet fragile. When you drive around a city and imagine the massive sums of crap we have to pull out of the earth to build all this stuff, it's easy to envision a planet being pillaged. What we cannot imagine, is the immense size of the Earth and just how little of it we exploit to better ourselves. It's beyond comprehension.

The reality is that recourses are virtually unlimited, and so long as we take reasonable measures to safeguard the environment, there is virtually nothing we can do to 'damage' the Earth. It will always be here, and life will flourish long after we are gone.

By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 4:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yes that is true.

However I don't see a reason why we shouldn't pursue alternative fuels (not ethanol). But they should just be introduced as they are made feasible and economical. Not shoved down our throats and using massive government subsidies to make them affordable.

By wempa on 6/5/2008 12:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
The reality is that recourses are virtually unlimited, and so long as we take reasonable measures to safeguard the environment, there is virtually nothing we can do to 'damage' the Earth. It will always be here, and life will flourish long after we are gone.

Excellent post ! Just like George Carlin stated ..... the Earth has been through WAY more harsh times than we can imagine so we need to stop these environmental extremists need to stop worrying that a plastic big is going to hurt it. Each year, HUNDREDS of species become extinct and there's nothing we can do to stop it. So, just let it be ! The Earth will survive. I'm all for making smart decisions and doing what we can, but let's not get carried away with all this "Save The Earth" garbage.

By JonnyDough on 6/11/2008 4:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
HUNDREDS of species become extinct and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Maybe not stop it, but we can stop causing them to become extinct. We bring invasive species over. Did you know that there are no mosquitoes and flies in Hawaii? Can you imagine what would happen to some local birds if we brought mosquitoes there? They would go extinct. Sure, mosquitoes could find their way their naturally someday. But when humans go developing swamps, releasing chemicals into water, etc, then we only have ourselves to blame if we cause extinction. How naive of you to think that the world is so large. Some species of animals live in a single river. The problem with people on DT posts is that they seem to think they have no effect on the environment. In 1970 they knew the Amazon was being cut down. It's an entire ecosystem. If we didn't care, or took your attitude, MILLIONS of creatures would be extinct. You're a complete FOOL to think that we don't impact nature. We destroy HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of acres of land. Sometimes it takes THOUSANDS of years to grow back. Ever heard of the giant redwoods? If you cut these down to build your nice suburban home, are you going to build one for the creatures that lived there too? I'm sorry DT readers, but you all talk like a bunch of moronic fools. Trying to act like none of it matters and that people are just blowing smoke. We're not talking about just global warming, we're talking about environmentalism, being AWARE of your IMPACT on YOUR world. It's not like we're digging up coal with a shovel. We're strip mining that coal. If we didn't have laws in place that required us to replant the trees, you can bet your right butt cheek that we'd have a lot more desert right now. A bulldozer blade used for strip mining is bigger than the face of a mid-sized 2 story house. I've stood on one. Please stop being so naive. We can and do negatively impact our earth, and it IS the only home we have. In the end, it'll be those "crazy nuts" that will be FORCED to rise up in arms against those that would rather have a lump of coal and a 4x4 house than a place to actually live.

By Lord 666 on 6/4/2008 6:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
It just means its time to invade Cuba or lift the restrictions.

By Chaser on 6/4/2008 3:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
So according to you, because some people desire to live away from the cities but commute to work and because of SUVs we had this coming? I don't think have ever heard something more absurd in my life.

Many U.S. presidents and governments have asked OPEC to increase oil production. That's nothing new. Demand for oil is going to continue to rise as more and more automobiles are being bought and put on the road worldwide. Production wil have to be increased. And I don't think you're going to see too many Prius', hybrids, and electric cars in India and China very soon.

Many mainstream environmentalists, as noted in prior posts above, have more of an agenda than just their "sincere" concern for the environment. They oppose and effectively block drilling off our coasts, Anwar, really any new domestic drilling nationwide. They take delight in slowing down the prosperity of the U.S. and in turn denying many freedoms that can still be appreciate here compared to other countries. Such as owning homes outside of the city, or owning an SUV if they choose. These "concerned environmentalists" take solace seeing oil priced out of the ball park to where more and more people may be forced to use mass transit or have to live much closer to cities in overpriced, crampt homes where they should be biking or walking to work I suppose.

If it makes these people feel better to have $9.00 a gallon gas there are plenty of other countries that will be happy to accomodate them. Maybe then they can find peace from their resentment and sulking of our freedoms replaced by the smug pleasure they gain from seeing more and more people living less comfortably.

By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 5:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that many of those same people are the ones who will blast the government for not doing more to help the poor. When it is them making them poorer!

By JonnyDough on 6/11/2008 8:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
1. Opec increases oil production.
2. Prices of gas drop.
3. Americans drive bigger cars.
4. Back where we started.

Supply will never keep up with demand, because the more supply there is, the more demand there is. Pumping more toxic ooze out of the ground is not the answer. Reducing how much we use, is.

By Spuke on 6/13/2008 3:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
Reducing how much we use, is.
And that's not even the answer as the US demand has gone down and China and India's has not. China is almost at our level of consumption. We only serve to make ourselves feel better by reducing our consumption because the act doesn't improve the WORLDS situation.

We have enough oil now. Use it to keep prices low so we can afford to develop other alternatives. Even if those alternatives end up being costly to us consumers at first, the lower price of most everything will allow us to purchase these alternatives thereby lowering the cost in the long term.

You don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 4:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to see you try and affordably market a vehicle made out of carbon fiber composite. Let me know how it works out.

By Cerin218 on 6/4/2008 4:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with carbon fiber other then the there is a higher cost associated with producing it? It is far stronger then steel and able to be molded into nearly any shape you can want. Doesn't rust either. Thank you for showing that one of the problems it reluctance to consider new ideas. Amusingly enough the new Tesla that everyone is talking about is a battery powered car that gets 200 miles to a charge does 0 to 60 in 4.3 seconds and has a body made of what? CARBON FIBER. And they have a waiting list right now at $90,000 plus each as a TWO SEATER! With a sedan planned at $40,000. Besides what do you consider affordable? That is a relative term.

By M3Rocket on 6/4/2008 4:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
What's wrong with carbon fiber other than costs in producing it? Try repairing it after a fender bender. Have you researched the environmental impact of producing that much carbon fiber to replace steel in all vehicles? Let alone the unintended consequences of making such a sea change to something that we KNOW works?

By Cerin218 on 6/4/2008 5:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
The car in question is a component based design which means after an accident the parts that were damaged can be replaced. The same way that steel cars work right now. One of the problems with fuel efficiency is weight. Sooner or later we will have to find other materials to create cars from. That is why a Honda Civic gets great gas mileage, low weight takes less energy to move. Airplanes aren't made of steel for a reason. I have not researched environmental cost, if you have the information I would be quite interested in it. If you take a look at how much is being used in the aeronautics and space programs due to high fatigue strength, increased corrosion resistance, improved fire resistance, easier design because of functional integration, possibility of complex shapes and lower weight. If you produce carbon fiber without hexavalent chromium primer (which is generally aircraft and DoD applications) it is not considered hazardous and there are companies out there that actively recycle it right now.

The point here is to try different ideas. I hear too many "because that's the way it's always been done" or "it's easier the way it is (referencing my earlier lazy remark)" people out there. We are trying to get oil from sand which is what this article is about because its more readily available, if more difficult to process because we don't want to use our resources or damage our environment. Its not about finding a new way, its about stubborn adherence to a popular idea. There were people that didn't want to leave horses for the horseless carriage, but you don't ride a horse to work today do you?

By Runiteshark on 6/4/2008 6:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to tell you, but its not steel on cars. Most of the time, all of the bodywork except for the doors and a couple other parts, are made from fiberglass, or urethane. Making it out of carbon fiber on the other hand, is stupid.

Do you actually think its a solid chunk of carbon fiber sheets bound together or something? All it is, is plastic covered with carbon fiber and a bit of lacquer. Thats all it is. Replacing urethane or fiberglass with carbon fiber panels gains you minimal weight savings. Trimming off all the emissions crap, and using an aluminum block on the other hand, greatly reduces your weight (and with the case of emissions equipment, gets you more power as well). I'd like to see a car made out of carbon fiber (frame wise) but I know that will never happen because I actually understand how they use it.

Saving 20 or even 200lbs from a car doesn't make your mpg quadruple, at most it will save you a few mpg, depending on the body style and drag coefficient. However, it should be known that cost effective weight reduction, is a good way to increase mpg.

One more thing, if getting additional gas mileage is so popular, how come people don't buy cold air intakes for their car so they can get an extra 1-2mpg?

By masher2 on 6/4/2008 7:00:17 PM , Rating: 1
> " if getting additional gas mileage is so popular, how come people don't buy cold air intakes for their car so they can get an extra 1-2mpg? "

A cold air intake slightly decreases mileage -- they're used to increase power, not economy.

By Runiteshark on 6/4/2008 8:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
Silly question, but what?

An unturned car with a cold air intake does indeed get an ever so slight increase in horsepower. However, since it is still tuned to what it was before (and it only takes what it is tuned for) it simply has to work less to get the air, and the air itself is denser, thus getting a better burn.

The MAF will register the air, and adjust accordingly, but will not decrease your fuel economy.

By masher2 on 6/4/2008 11:26:35 PM , Rating: 1
> "it simply has to work less to get the air, and the air itself is denser, thus getting a better burn."

It's a classic tradeoff scenario. Denser air is takes more energy to pull in; it contains more oxygen per unit volume, which increases power, but that greater density makes the engine work slightly harder to intake it. I seriously doubt the effect is anywhere near 2mpg, but it does exist.

By FITCamaro on 6/5/2008 6:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
With a good air intake the engine has to work less hard to pull in air because its a straighter, less restrictive shot. Your factory airbox typically has a lot of extra space for the air to go other than into the intake. Or a lot of bends which restrict flow. Most cold air intakes are a straight tube with a filter that goes directly to the intake manifold.

This way more air can more easily get directly to the engine. Now whether its colder air depends where the filter end is mounted. If its mounted in the engine bay, its still warm. If its in the wheel well or front of the car yes it will be cooler.

In the end it helps the engine be more efficient. And a more efficient engine not only makes more power but also can reduce fuel economy.

Now all these little rice burners running around with a cold air intake aren't going to see any improvement. Usually because they buy a cheap piece of crap AEM or something. Also the engine isn't big enough to need the greater volume of air (saw an article where they spent $2000 putting a CAI, ignition coil and wires, and header on a Civic. Netted 1 hp gain and lost 2 lb ft of torque).

However on a larger engine that typically has a more restricted air intake (due to emissions equipment), you can see some nice performance gains and a slight fuel economy boost. Not much but maybe 1 mpg.

By masher2 on 6/5/2008 6:51:37 AM , Rating: 2
> "With a good air intake the engine has to work less hard to pull in air "

Mechanical restriction is a wholly separate matter than the temperature of the air being indrawn. One can have a restricted or an open intake, either pulling in hot or cold air.

The point is that air temperature itself works to restrict intake. All else being equal, warm air is easier to intake, which makes the engine work less hard, and (again very slightly) increases efficiency.

As for the physical amount of air itself, modern engines work very hard to strictly balance the volume of air with fuel, to ensure close to a stochiometric ratio. Too much air results in a very lean burn, which dramatically increases emissions.

By cherrycoke on 6/4/2008 7:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to see you try and affordably market a vehicle made out of carbon fiber composite. Let me know how it works out.

other then the there is a higher cost associated with producing it?

are you even paying attention at all to what other people are writing? affordable and high cost don't play nice with each other.

By Spuke on 6/13/2008 4:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
One, the Tesla does 0-60 in 5.7 seconds not 4.3. The current transmission is the problem. They're working on a fix and supposedly current cars will be retrofitted (don't know if it will be free).

Two, the Tesla's BASE price is $109k plus a $5k reservation fee to lock in your price PLUS another $55k fee to lock in a production slot and delivery time frame. If you don't care when you'll get your now $169k car then you can save the extra $55k.

Three, Tesla saved a TON of money by modifying a current car instead of designing a new one from scratch. If they had built a new one, they'd still be working on it and it would cost a WHOLE lot more than $169k.

Four, there are other exotics that use carbon fiber in construction in that price range. Nothing new here. But there's NO car in the affordable range (the Camry/Accord range) that uses carbon fiber. Carbon fiber is also difficult to manufacture which raises its cost. Getting that fender just right will cost you. Some shapes just can't be done with carbon fiber. So now you've lowered your design possibilities.

Four, carbon fiber doesn't bend, it shatters at its critical point much like glass. So when you get into an accident, there will be shards of CF for everyone's tires to get punctured on. It also doesn't like being sandblasted so if you live in an area that has dust storms, you can pretty much guarantee that you need your panels replaced after a while. In one of those Players Run videos, an Enzo owner had to have the front end of his car replaced after the run because the paint and some of the CF wore off!

clean fuels used already in SD
By Screwballl on 6/4/2008 1:13:15 PM , Rating: 3
One of the first states to start using Ethanol additives in their gasoline? South Dakota
One of the states that had the first clean burning coal power plant? South Dakota (Black Hills Power and Light, using super-low sulfur coal from Wyoming mines)

It only makes sense to add them to the list of the cleanest refineries ever built. Plus there is enough space in SD that they have more room for industry to expand.

SD is my home state so this is good news for me.

RE: clean fuels used already in SD
By MrBungle123 on 6/4/2008 1:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
dispite what the current political establishment wants you to believe Ethanol is not a "clean" fuel after you factor in all the energy that goes into manufacturing it.

RE: clean fuels used already in SD
By rykerabel on 6/4/2008 1:56:24 PM , Rating: 3
I think his point is that of all the States, SD is actually doing something. SD may not always be right, but it at least is trying.

By Screwballl on 6/4/2008 2:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
Correct... SD tries to do it properly... instead of half-assed or far beyond their means such as we see in CA and now more so in FL.

RE: clean fuels used already in SD
By Screwballl on 6/4/2008 2:07:49 PM , Rating: 1
I know this but many others do not. It also causes excessive wear and tear in vehicle engines that are not specifically modified to run ethanol (newer "flexfuel" vehicles). A car that would ordinarily run for 200,000+ miles is dying or having massive repairs done at 80,000 miles.
On a road trip to visit my family from FL to SD, we had a 2001 Nissan Pathfinder. That thing ran perfect the entire time we had it (well over 60K miles in 3 years)... until we used those 2 tankfuls of 10% ethanol... that engine never ran the same after that and within a matter of months we ended up spending well over $2000 worth of repairs to items related directly with the fuel system.

RE: clean fuels used already in SD
By Runiteshark on 6/4/2008 3:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah it wears down stuff so much:

Too bad practically everyone adds 10% ethanol to their gas, plus it dosen't actually do anything to wear down an engine at all (unless you have full stainless steel valves, versus titanium.

I've decided to go to an e85 setup on my k20, mainly because of that sweet sweet 105 octane, available anywhere.

RE: clean fuels used already in SD
By Spuke on 6/13/2008 4:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
I've decided to go to an e85 setup on my k20, mainly because of that sweet sweet 105 octane, available anywhere.
Really? Can you tell where I can E85 in CA?

RE: clean fuels used already in SD
By Spuke on 6/13/2008 4:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh. Can you tell me where I can get E85 in CA?

For once it's a good thing...
By spazze on 6/4/2008 1:25:40 PM , Rating: 3
For once it's a good thing that South Dakota has such a conservative government. While I would usually want a Democrat, or any sort of free thinker in the governor’s mansion in Pierre, having a Republican now seems a good thing. Hopefully this will decrease the price at the pump at least a little for those of us who live in this state, as the gas will not have to come more than 200 miles to get to the local pumps.

Also on the plus side is the possible decrease in diesel prices for our local farmers. Since South Dakota is mostly a rural state with agriculture as a major part of the work force, this hike in the cost of diesel has been hurting them most severely.

South Dakota is also working on a few wind farm options, so it seems something is going right here. I mean, a state as flat as this could use a few good wind farms for electricity production, but the state hasn’t been extremely receptive to the idea, but at least it’s starting to move.

Wind for the tree huggers, and oil for the rest of us. Everyone should be happy.

RE: For once it's a good thing...
By Ringold on 6/4/2008 2:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
For once it's a good thing that South Dakota has such a conservative government.

Fascinating. I'd read over the past six months how strong the Dakota's were doing economically while some of the northern liberal states economies were continuing a slow collapse that started in 2000, and wondered what made SD so special that The Peoples Republic of Michigan could be a wreck while SD is actually sending people to universities and job fairs across the country, trying, begging people to come move to SD and fill scores of open job positions.

And now you say it's a conservative government. I had assumed it was yet another northern liberal state, since the former Senate Majority Leader was from either SD or ND. Now it makes sense. Conservative leadership, strong economy. Mystery solved! :)

One other thing people haven't noted much is the jobs. Yes, it'll add many high paying ones directly, but each high paying job has the potential to spawn 2 or 3 other local service jobs. At least, thats how it tends to be in metro areas, I guess it could be a slower process in such a thiny populated area.

RE: For once it's a good thing...
By smitty3268 on 6/4/2008 3:55:48 PM , Rating: 2
Conservative leadership, strong economy. Mystery solved! :)

Sorry, but if that's the case then why are the conservative states in the south also the poorest in the country? While the super liberal northern states are doing much better?

RE: For once it's a good thing...
By spazze on 6/4/2008 5:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
For what it’s worth, SD does have the illustrious distinction of having, I believe, the second lowest teachers salaries in the US. We do make up for it in other ways, the cost of living here is pretty low, and the state lotto, that people are trying to get rid of AGAIN, helps keep it low.

You can’t just say that conservatives make an economy stronger, but in THIS case it helps. The econuts can drive their Prius’s (or Prii what’s plural of Prius?) and think they are helping the environment or whatever and be extreme liberals, but from my perspective, being a lowly working class guy, I want lower gas prices. I want farmers to be able to produce the products we need at lower cost, so my small salary can go where it needs to go to keep my family moving forward. Republicans are more likely to allow that then the Democrats. At least in relation to progression vs. environment.

When it comes to things like abortion and medical insurance, I tend to lean liberal, but let’s be realistic, bipartisan attitudes really aren’t for the benefit of all It’s sort of like being in the middle of 2 fighting faiths. No one really wins in the end.

As for people who think we should live in huts and farm our own goods, that’s great, for them, but take away my computer and DVR and I would not be a happy man.

RE: For once it's a good thing...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/2008 8:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but if that's the case then why are the conservative states in the south also the poorest in the country? While the super liberal northern states are doing much better?

States cannot be " poor " or " rich " because States, as arms of the Government, do not produce products or make revenue. All states can do to generate funds is through taxation.

Governments don't produce. They protract from its citizens.

Conservatism strives to limit the governmental impact on small businesses and citizens. I.E, less taxes. Combine this with southern states as being mostly rural with lower population, and there you have it, they are " poorer ".

If you actually bothered to research your kneejerk claim you would see most major northern cities are fiscal nightmares. With wildly inflated spending budgets, no oversight to speak of, and the taxpayers paying a completely unnaceptable level of taxation.

Governments aren't Robbin Hood. When a Liberal takes from the rich to " give to the poor ", they are really just taking from everyone and giving nothing back.

Frankly this country would be so much better off with every state being as " poor " as the south.

By smitty3268 on 6/4/2008 11:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not talking about how much money the states bring in through taxes or the fiscal status of the cities, I'm talking about how well off the average citizen in each state is.

If you bothered to do any actual research instead of attacking me, you would know that poverty is rampant throughout the South, and much rarer in the North.

Frankly this country would be so much better off with every state being as " poor " as the south.

You can of course make that argument, and certainly a lot of the people who live there would never want to leave. I myself live in a fairly conservative mid western state that I like pretty well. What you can't say is that conservative government = automatic riches. It just doesn't work that way all the time, things go both ways, and that was my point.

breaking point
By 195 on 6/4/2008 12:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if the uber-legalistic environmentalists would take their cause to the grave (literally) instead of giving in a little bit for the better of the country.

Where is the "breaking point" where gas prices become so high that environmentalists would finally stop resisting efforts to expand refinery capacity? Do they fight til oil is $10,000 a barrel? How high can we do til they give in? I would almost want to see how far down the path they would continue unfettered resistance.

RE: breaking point
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 12:58:03 PM , Rating: 3
As far as they're concerned, we should stop importing and using oil all together. They won't stop until we're living as the Native Americans did.

Ever read Rainbow Six(yes its a book, not just a video game)? Yeah some of them aren't that far off. If you haven't give it a read. Very good book. One of my favorites.

RE: breaking point
By bryanW1995 on 6/4/2008 1:23:49 PM , Rating: 1
by fighting the clear will of the voters the eco-nazis are costing all of us money.

RE: breaking point
By MozeeToby on 6/4/2008 1:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
My favorite part of that book was the kooky environmentalist crying as she painlessly euthanized an animal test subject, then later on, matter-of-factly injected a few dozen people with 100 cc's of potasium causing painful death.

RE: breaking point
By masher2 on 6/4/2008 1:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
-- John Davis, editor Earth First! journal.

RE: breaking point
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 2:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
I say that he's the first we drown in salt then.

By mdogs444 on 6/4/2008 12:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
It appears some people are finally starting to come back to reality - building more refineries. Now, if we could only get them to realize what good is sitting under the ground in Montana, we'll be good to go.

Chalk up a win for clear thinking individuals with common sense.

RE: Finally!
By ksherman on 6/4/2008 12:59:15 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously! It blows my mind that US refineries have missed out on over 30 years of technology improvements. Not to mention the increase in capacitiy.

RE: Finally!
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 1:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not yet man. The hippies still plan to fight tooth and nail to get their way. They could care less that the majority of the people there voted for it. The common people's opinion isn't important.

RE: Finally!
By tmouse on 6/4/2008 1:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely, refineries have to stay over 95% capacity to remain profitable so there has not been much room for growth for some time. People should also realize the vulnerability of many of them (i.e. near the Gulf of Mexico). Oil companies have used refining capacity as an excuse every fall to further jack up prices as they "switch" production to make more diesel because the demand increases in the northeast for heating.

I live in SD
By Mars999 on 6/4/2008 4:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
I live in SD and this project will be great for the state and its economy. Fact is where this is going, the area sits out in a corn field and flat area where not much of a danger to wildlife or much of anything else. In a state that has pathetic wages this is a good thing. Plus the only thing we have here to worry about is tornadoes, where down south they have hurricanes causing oil shortages...

RE: I live in SD
By Mars999 on 6/4/2008 4:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
Should say the tornadoes hardly ever hit that county anyway! :)

RE: I live in SD
By FITCamaro on 6/5/2008 6:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well the only issue is that expect those wages to go up. Which a lot of mom and pop places won't be able to afford. It happened in other places where they started pulling natural gas out of the ground. Who wants to work at Wendy's when you can get $20 an hour working at a refinery?

Now granted what it will do is pull in a lot of jobs requiring a college degree. People who have the money to buy things. But still local communities will probably experience rising prices due to this. Its not necessarily a bad thing if its controlled.

Attention Environmentalists
By chsh1ca on 6/4/2008 3:14:34 PM , Rating: 3
Rather than wasting your resources on stopping a refinery, sink the money into coming up with cleaner alternate power sources. It is probably a far better way to help the environment, and if you do that, we won't need new gas refineries.

By CryptoQuick on 6/4/2008 10:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. We need options, not problems.

heads up
By jay401 on 6/4/2008 2:46:43 PM , Rating: 4
You should read this article about this new refinery:

Because there you'll see the blinding insanity of bitterness by those who oppose the construction of the refinery: They're so bitter and absurd that instead of packing up and going home after losing the vote, they will now purposefully slow down and inhibit the construction process. Talk about sore losers:

"We have strategies in place to slow or delay all the permit processes," Ed Cable, chairman of the anti-Hyperion group Save Union County, said after the vote.

How ignorant. How arrogant.

By bobbronco on 6/4/2008 4:12:56 PM , Rating: 1
Since when does a small pseudo-journalistic "article" bordering on propaganda about a possible refinery being constructed in South Dakota constitute a Science heading?

Rather, this seems more like yet another attempt by the author to draw a very thin line of relationship between geopolitical issues and true science news. The obvious pandering of political muckraking as objective reporting comes off as both amateurish, transparent, and just plain tiresome. ...Yawn

Now, I don't blame the author for the content therein; superficiality, even if skillfully constructed, is all too common in journalism today. No, this is yet another example of the altogether poor characterization and editorial review consistently exhibited by this news organization on subjects that extend beyond its core charter.

Some advice for Dailytech... Stick to reporting about new tech gadgets and computing industry news. That's what most of your readership cares about when visiting this site. It's what you do well and it rarely comes across as politically charged drivel.

RE: Science?
By porkpie on 6/4/2008 6:03:13 PM , Rating: 3
Stick to reporting about new tech gadgets and computing industry news. That's what most of your readership cares about
- Comments on this article: 88
- Comments on the latest tech gadget article: 7

I'd say your thesis has a big hole in it there, pardner.

By NullSubroutine on 6/4/2008 1:21:19 PM , Rating: 1
Though I live about 7 miles from where it is supposed to be built, I live in Vermillion in Clay County (Union Co is where its being built), we didn't really get a say in this.

All I have to say is just about every land owner in the region and those in Union Co. wanted this deal to go through. Local land prices have already been increasing as Hyperion selected Union Co. among two other possible sites; I can imagine they will continue to boom.

Even though supporters like to say Hyperion's refineries are the cleanest in the world, there are many doubters. Combine the fact South Dakota has just about zero environmental and no (or little) corporate tax (no income tax, only sales) you can imagine this will get pushed through since Union Co. has Oked it.

My major concern is if SD doesn't pass some decent environmental laws because, while the feds have some nice laws, under Bush the EPA doesn't really enforce them (compared to what they used to). I don't want to see our ground water ruined (natural aquifer in the region) or the Mighty Mo (Missouri River) tainted. Some say Hyperion's refineries don't smell, and I hope thats true as well.

I suppose though, if we could get $.40-.50/gallon cheaper gas (as there is Ethanol produced here that already drops the price 20cents or so), it wouldn't be so bad in the short term.

By MrBungle123 on 6/4/2008 2:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
as there is Ethanol produced here that already drops the price 20cents or so

the only reason it is "cheaper" is because the government is subisdizing the production of ethanol... you're losing that 20 cents a gallon and then some through other taxes.

By Cerin218 on 6/4/2008 3:48:04 PM , Rating: 1
I don't get why everyone clings to oil as a an energy source and will only be dragged kicking and screaming like a small child pulled from his mother. The by products of higher gas prices are that alternative methods are being found to power vehicles. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime and see the guy that has created a vehicle the size of a s-10 blazer that is made from carbon fiber composite and uses an engine that gets 50-70 mpg from standard gas. You need to realize that 80-85 percent of the power from a car engine is lost transferring that energy to the ground. Researchers are trying to figure out how to change this. At .89 a gallon there is no interest in funding or social acceptance of this type of research. At $4.00 more people are paying attention. We have created this dependence on oil because humans by nature are lazy. They want the easiest thing possible at the least amount of cost and effort. So yes, build another refinery so that our dependence on a finite energy source can be prolonged. That way we can argue this exact point again in another 30 years. It isn't just gasoline causing this dependence, its all the disposable electronics and products the are generated because of consumerism. How do you think plastic is made? From oil. Think about that next time you throw away your computer keyboard because its dirty and only costs 10$ replace which makes it easier then cleaning. Or buy a new cell phone because its newer then your old one. Manufactures cry foul when you try to get them to increase gas mileage from 13 to 17 mpg right now. Look at Times Square, how much energy would be saved if the multistory advertising displays were turned off? Capitalism is damaging society as the almighty dollar and making it takes precedence over common sense. Do corporations have morals or values? The clinical definition of a corporation is sociopathic behavior. The government will be less powerful in the future and the corporations will rule and all the gas guzzlers are completely content to drive their hummers and provide the corporations with the resources they need to keep getting bigger and stronger. The RIAA operates outside the government with impunity due to backing of corporations. In this country we all know money makes the rules and the 10 billion dollar profit (that's what is left over after cover ALL other expenses of operation)by the oil companies definitely gives them muscle. Why would they WANT to provide more refining? As a capitalist I would rather have infinite demand for my limited supply. 4 dollars for one gallon sounds better then 4 gallons for 4 dollars as far as my profit. Like the oil companies are some type of loving parent that only wants the best for us? Not! They want money. They aren't making a new refinery because they feel compassion for us, they are doing it because 400,000 barrels a day MAKE THEM MORE MONEY, not Saudia Arabia. Environmentalists may be a little crazy, but the movie the Matrix was right, Humans are a virus. We move into an area, and destroy it for our own comfort, we don't learn to coexist naturally. Hell oil pollutes the air we all breathe and we are destroying the means nature created to clear that air but as long as you don't inconvenience people, most don't give a crap. As long as there is enough for me, let my kids worry about themselves. This dependence is short sighted, and oh so sad..

By Fluxion on 6/4/2008 4:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
While I disagree in some areas (I do tend to view capitalism as the best possible situation of exchange/production/etc), generally I agree with the attitudes you provided. It seems the general attitude on DT is "To hell with alternative fuels! They're the brainchild of Nazi-like environmentalists! Oh, and environmentalism is bad, mmkay!"

And sadly, current and previous generations of Americans did and do take natural resources for granted. As a geologist, I can tell you, sure, there are still quite a bit of primary resources available for the taking. But as natural supply diminishes more and more, we have to go to more extremes in order to extract it. From underground mining to environmentally-destructive strip mining, we ARE taking a toll on the environment, but it's easy for Average Joe Computer Geek who never leaves the house and goes to see exactly what occurs, to take a blind eye to it, or refuse to believe it's as bad as it is.

Look above, where someone said the earth has unlimited resources. Um, no, it doesn't. Sure, it has some forms of renewable energy, and some resources that essentially are unlimited with proper management (that horrible word "recycling", etc.), but it's by no means an infinite dispenser of natural resources. Do we still need oil? Yes. Could our dependence upon oil be completely eliminated in 10, 15, 25 or 50 years? Definately, but people would have to make sacrifices, such as potentially paying more for fuel to begin with, and sadly, most Americans could care less about the environment or sustainability, as long as they can get what they want as cheap as possible.

32 years!
By Tacoloft on 6/4/2008 3:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
32 friggin years! And people complain about the economy...

I have hope because I must
By kjboughton on 6/4/2008 6:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
To properly understand the fundamental consequences of the failure of the US energy market and the impact it’s had on the global market you must first be willing to accept a rather painful truth: The (U.S.) government doesn’t fix problems, it creates them. Once you acknowledge this simple fact the answer becomes obvious: Deregulate the industry to the maximum extent possible, let the law of supply and demand dictate when, where and how many new refineries should be built, prevent the government for enabling new laws and regulations intended to severely limit or prohibit drilling altogether (driven by the left, which is bent on sending us all into the next global recession), open small portions of areas formally designated as “protected” (ANWR, for example) for the purposes of exploration, encourage new innovation through the focused application of corporate tax credits and let the companies that do the research do just that, and finally, stop blaming “big oil” for the failures of Congress and the Senate to enact common-sense legislation (actually, in my opinion, less is more).

Anyone that is frustrated with current fuel/food prices need not look any farther than the local office of their district Senator. We don’t have a supply problem, at least not in the traditional sense. What we have is a situation in which those that make the rules have decided to side with the most anti-capitalistic, anti-American, pro-poverty movement to date – that of the environmentalist. Truth be told, I might be willing to entertain their agenda – because, hey, I’m all for conservation – if it weren’t for the fact that is downright ruins our way of life, stifles our hope and any sense of prosperity, takes money from our pockets and food from our tables, and ultimately makes us all that much poorer. Talk about a step in the wrong direction…

Tar sands!?
By CryptoQuick on 6/4/2008 7:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
...the refinery will process 400,000 barrels a day of Canadian tar sands crude into low-sulfur diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel.

Are they serious? I'm surprised no one's caught this, but tar sands are worse than petroleum, since you don't normally have to dig up pristine forests, not to mention the fact that you need 2x-4.5x as much water used as fuel created poured into tailings ponds, and the carbon footprint is higher than that of petroleum.

There's a rather detailed wiki section on this issue alone.

Tar sands are just not the answer. No wonder environmentalist groups were outraged; this isn't about easing our gas supply, this is just outright irresponsible and ignorant of the actual technicalities involved.

I just can't wait until Matt Stone & Trey Parker get ahold of this; instead of Blame Canada, we can Screw Canada.

There are many solutions
By biohazard420420 on 6/4/2008 9:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
There are many solutions to the energy crunch problem we face as a country right now. But first and foremost we SHOULD drill for more oil and build more refineries. There are plenty of people who like to complain about $4/gallon gas but none of them want to take the most sensable option which is to drill and refine more oil. Look there are plenty of pros and cons on the drilling for more oil option but it is the ONLY option that will lower prices for us at the pump. ANWR has land that was set aside form the beginning to drill for oil but noooo we cant drill there. There is plenty of oil off the east and west coasts but nooooooo we cant drill their either. Drilling for oil has become much more envoronmentaly friendly in these past 30 years we spill MUCH less and we can reach a HUGE area from one single drill site.

If you want to complain about the price give us the option to do something to directly affect it. Alternative fuels and hybrids etc. are good options but are cost prohibitive. Ethanol is nice but why do you think food costs are going up we are diverting corn from one use to another and jacking the price up something has got to give. IF we do not step forward and do something to produce more oil ourselves we will continue to be held over a barrel by the price. Which is largely controlled by OPEC (who we DO NOT get the majority of our oil from) and from speculators in the oil market betting on prices.

Alot of the environmental movement radical or not wants us to live like it was 100 years ago and I will bet that even they would not like to be without our modern conviences on a permanant basis. We are talking no tv, no cars, no computers, no electricity, no healthcare nothing. millions will die and or suffer without modern devices, medicines and other products. As we progress as a culture we continue to do things cleaner and more effeciently and that can only help the earth we are learning from our past mistakes and makeing changes to do it better faster and cleaner.

Against a refinery?
By krwhite on 6/4/2008 9:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
They may as well be against building any kind of building, because (construction pollution) + zero would be the net result of the pollution.. Think. If the gas isn't refined as much over seas after this, and is refined here, then the difference is zero.

Further, if a boat doesn't have to ride over here with a ton of gas, thats energy saved.

If it equates that gas prices lower and more energy is consumed from this, then there would be that extra difference. Then again, that leaves the potential for more coin in your pocket to plant a tree rather than use more energy.

put them in nevada
By hitman699 on 6/5/2008 2:07:49 AM , Rating: 2
I personally think we should open a whole slew of them in nevada... and some nuclear power plants.. for several reasons..

1) There is nothing there other then vegas..(and thats not exactly awesome)...

2) they have already had nuclear testing.. and that doesn't seem to bother people there.. and nuclear power plants generally are safer

3) most people have been forclosed on there so there is less people to inconvienence.. and those that are left... lets face it... you need to be pretty dumb to live in a place that is 115 degrees in the summer daily...

4)we could let black people move there for free (and anyone from new orleans.. essentially the same thing).. that would eliminate 3 problems. not enough electricity, not enough oil and fast neighborhood degradation due to too many black people... problem solved.

how am I wrong?

A different pont of view
By shadowfunhaus on 6/5/2008 6:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
While I'm not against alternate fuel sources, I personally think building more refineries is a good idea for several reasons.

1. No matter how fast people come up with a viable option for alternative fuel, It will still be many years before we can reach full implementation. (Note: Hybrid's do not count. They run on Gasoline, and therefore are not a viable option.)

2. Refineries are not just used for Gasoline. They also produces heating oil, Engine oil, etc. Therefore. unless we completely abandon the internal-combustion engine we will still need refineries.

3. New refining technologies mean the plant will be better on the environment then older plants.

4. Depending on the new fuel source, it is possible that a new plant would be able to be converted to produce the new fuel. The plant may also be able to produce the new fuel from the start, who knows?

I could go on, but you get the point. Now for those of you prepared to write me off, let me say that I don't drive a gas-guzzling SUV. I drive a small car, and predicted the increase in Gas prices 5 years ago. I am just saying that getting rid of oil without an alternative is just stupid.

By the way, If big oil is to blame for this, then why not bring back the corvair. 40+ MPG in 1966! lol

Consumerism vs the Environment
By JonnyDough on 6/5/2008 5:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
While I see the need for gas, I also can't help but be saddened that consumerism trumps nature once again. It's a sad day for mankind when he puts himself before the earth that raised him. I can't help but see it kind of like letting your folks starve while you chow down. If only we could learn to control our population as a global community, we wouldn't need to thirst for so many resources like hungry locusts.

By Livingston3 on 6/6/2008 10:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
“Too few Americans and far too few media people know anything about the environmental movement and it’s transformation over the past 35 years into something vastly different. They have (the greens) become far more extreme and whose politics is little more than neo-Marxism in green garb”.

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace.

“Like fascism and communism, Kyotoism is an attack on basic human freedoms behind a smokescreen of propaganda. Like those ideologies of human hatred, it will be exposed and defeated." Andrey Illarionov, former Russian Economics Minister under Vladimir Putin

"The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.”

Michael Crichton

By Livingston3 on 6/6/2008 10:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
“Warner-Lieberman would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.”

“The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that this meddling would cause a cumulative reduction in the growth of GDP by between 0.9% and 3.8% by 2030. Add 20 years, and the reduction is between 2.4% and 6.9% – that is, from $1 trillion to $2.8 trillion.”

“While moralizing about America, most of Europe has failed to meet its mandatory cap and trade goals under the Kyoto Protocol. But the U.S. isn't Italy; we will enforce our laws. So our guess is that these cost estimates are invariably far too low.”

“Ms. Boxer's amendment shows that cap and trade is also a massive wealth redistribution scheme – all mediated by her and her fellow Platonic rulers.”

Wall Street Journal online

This is like...
By Cheapshot on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: This is like...
By Lerianis on 6/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: This is like...
By mdogs444 on 6/4/2008 1:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
Even without your "coming out", I would have guessed you were an 'extreme liberal'.

The facts are, as shown my history, that many of the people in the US do not WANT small cars like a Honda Civic. They are only buying them because their hands are being forced to because of gasoline prices and a slumping economy. Also, many of the people of the US cannot get by with a small car, as many industries call for heavy duty trucks and the like.

Gasoline prices are so high because of speculators, taxation, and the resistance of the US Government to drill and refine on our own land. There is not a direct "supply" correlation, because the US Government is responsible for the supply problem - by not allowing us to create our own supply.

There is no reason outside of politics for todays gasoline prices, and thus there is no reason to force everyone to drive a Honda Civic. The politics needs to change, the people & their car habits.

RE: This is like...
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 2:23:06 PM , Rating: 3
How do you figure that it doesn't increase manufacturing cost? If you're speaking of diesels, diesels cost more to produce because they require higher strength materials to withstand the much higher compression and temperatures in a diesel engine.

Things like direct injection also cost more.

RE: This is like...
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 2:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
They shouldn't do anything. They should let the free market reign. If I want to drive a Suburban, I should be able to. If I want to drive a Civic, I should be able to.

It is not the job of the government to force or dissuade us from buying certain products. But through not letting us drill our own oil and passing ridiculously high MPG requirements that will ruin the US auto industry, thats exactly what they're doing.

400k vs 20M?
By vapore0n on 6/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: 400k vs 20M?
By FITCamaro on 6/4/2008 12:54:41 PM , Rating: 6
Because we can do both.

RE: 400k vs 20M?
By rdeegvainl on 6/4/2008 12:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we build 48 of them, one for all of the 48 lower states. Then the prices can really go down. There are plenty of rural areas that really need an economic boost, and we can spend the money we save on alternatives then?

RE: 400k vs 20M?
By MrBungle123 on 6/4/2008 1:35:21 PM , Rating: 5
vapore0n said;
that should really drop the price of gas at the pump
by about 1 cent...

US consumes aprox 20M barrels.

Why not spend that money in coming up with better alternate energy, so we dont end up in this same cycle again in the future.

under that logic we shouldn't even try to come up with alternative sources because they might be in short supply someday too.

"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki