No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for July 1st, 2009

100% energy-independent Wisconsin (on “green” energy, no less)?

by @ 21:26. Filed under Energy, Politics - Wisconsin.

I hate to dump all over Mark Neumann’s idea that Wisconsin could, with “green, renewable” energy, be 100% energy independent in a generation, but I’m afraid I must. First, I must state that I admire what he did with the “green” home his company built.

There are two primary sources of energy, electricity and fuel. I could not find specifically how much electricity Wisconsin uses, but American Transmission Company, which serves the eastern 2/3rds of the state, most of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and the Rockford, Illinois area, delivered a total of 68,162,000 megawatt-hours of electricity in 2008, with a peak 1-hour load of 11,794 megawatts. Meanwhile, in 2007 (the last year figures were available), the consumption of “green power” in Wisconsin, including power produced outside the state, was 197,145 megawatt-hours, with a peak 1-hour capacity of just under 106 megawatts. Granted, that doesn’t include hydroelectric (which is 100% tapped), and it doesn’t include projects built since 2007, but somehow I doubt there’s anywhere close to either 50,000,000 megawatt-hours/year or a reliable peak capacity of anywhere near 9,000 megawatts in “green” power. Those requirements just go up exponentially if plug-in electric cars ever hit Wisconsin.

Second, there’s fuel. I will necessarily be overly simplistic because of a similar lack of reliable information, but that’s balanced by the fact that, unless synthetic fuels somehow can be made with the resources in Wisconsin, we will never be 100% fuel-independent. In 2007, Wisconsin drivers used about 2,950,000,000 gallons of fuel. I don’t know what the splits between gasoline and diesel were, so I will assume that it was all gasoline. Further, I’ll assume that 7% of that fuel was ethanol. That leaves 2,743,500 gallons of gasoline used. In a generation, I would expect, between fuel efficiency increases and population increases, that to be reduced by about 25%, or about 2,000,000 gallons of gasoline.

If that is replaced by ethanol, given the inefficiencies of it versus gasoline, we’re looking at 2,500,000 gallons of ethanol that would need to be produced to make every part of E85 that can be produced in Wisconsin actually produced in Wisconsin. Assuming all of that is produced from corn (which the outstate farmers would love), about 7,620,000 acres would need to be given over to ethanol production. Given there were just over 15,000,000 acres of farmland in 2007, divided between crops and livestock, where exactly is all that corn going to be grown?

I do note that using switchgrass to make ethanol uses half the land. Still, that’s over a quarter of the farmland. What farm products do we give up exporting? Wheat? Corn? Milk?

There is another alternative; hydrogen-powered fuel cells. Provided there is sufficient electricity to split water into its component hydrogen and oxygen, it would seem that Wisconsin, with Lake Michigan on the east, Lake Superior on the northwest, the Mississippi River on the southwest, and innumerable lakes and rivers, would be a prime source for hydrogen. However, there’s two bits of bad news. First, it takes a lot of energy to split water, and Wisconsin doesn’t exactly have a surplus of that, especially “green” energy. Second, does anybody believe for a second that the enviromentalists will let that water be used for energy on anything approaching a mass scale?

Revisions/extensions (9:32 pm 7/1/2009) – I originally forgot to take into account that E85 still is 15% gasoline. The affected numbers have been corrected.

Everything you need to know about the DPW and business in WI

by @ 16:56. Filed under Business, Politics - Wisconsin.

Earlier today, WisBusiness ran a story on the state budget which featured the following about and from Sen. Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield):

In a letter to constituents on his website, he labeled the spending plan “nothing short of a job killing, taxpayer harming, disaster of a budget, complete with billions of dollars in new taxes and fees” that will force companies to leave Wisconsin.

He wrote of a recent meeting with a Milwaukee-area business attorney who specifically mentioned “Doyle’s budget” as the reason why two executives he knows are making plans to move their firms to the Texas, which Kanavas said has a much friendlier business climate.

“People have to take a long hard look at the policies being pursued in Madison and realize they just don’t work,” he wrote.

“Our state is going to experience a net out-migration of producers and a net in-migration of people who are more dependent on government. We are killing our economy and our future.

“If we don’t change and change soon, I may bump into my lawyer friend again, but it just might be in Texas,” he said.

In response, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin issued this inane press release (via WisPolitics):

CONTACT: Jason A. Stephany, 608-260-2405, jasons@wisdems.org

MADISON – Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate today released the following statement in response to reports that Senator Ted Kanavas’ may soon move to Texas.

“Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

Meanwhile, Briggs & Stratton announced today that it is closing its Watertown and Jefferson facilities, moving the headquarters from Jefferson to Wauwatosa and moving the production at both facilities to facilities in the Southeast. That will result in 530 jobs departing Wisconsin, with only 90-100 workers being offered positions out of state.

Not only is the DPW happy with driving jobs out of Wisconsin, but their leadership team has a serious lack of reading comprehension.

Neumann officially a candidate

by @ 12:56. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Former Representative Mark Neumann has filed his campaign registration papers that makes him a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor last year. His reason for getting in, as told to WTMJ-AM’s Charlie Sykes – “10 years (have) gone by. I’ve gone back to the private sector. We build a bunch of different businesses. I’m on the front line in the business world, and I understand that when government passes new rules and regulations and raises taxes, that it is very anti-business. We’ve seen 133,000 jobs leave the state of Wisconsin in the last 12 months alone. That’s the reason for getting in.” In an interview with WISN-AM’s Jay Weber, he made the case that it is “very important” that those who govern have private-sector experience.

Neumann also touted his experience as part of the Congress that created the first “balanced” budget in my lifetime. He said that he can’t see how to fix things nationally, as the feds have put things too far out of whack.

While Neumann has not yet made detailed platform positions, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story linked above notes that the overriding theme is to make Wisconsin globally competitive. The main item that is known at this point is that Neumann would propose budgets that would limit yearly spending growth to 1% below inflation, with tax cuts following when state revenues begin rising again.

Another item where Neumann would be expected to be a leader is education. He is co-chairman of HOPE Christian Schools, which has 3 private choice schools in Milwaukee and a public charter school in Phoenix. He and Weber had a rather lengthy discussion on that near the end of their interview.

There is a rather significant problem that Weber found in his interview with Neumann – ethanol, specifically Neumann’s support for it. He said that’s part of the “global” environmental package, and specifically that it is part of making Wisconsin energy-independent with “clean, renewable” energy.

Flashback – my short interview with Neumann at the RPW Convention two months ago.

Painkiller healthcare, less the painkiller

by @ 8:57. Filed under Health, Politics - National.

Remember when Barack Obama said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”? Guess what – the pain-free death he advocated is about to have a lot of pain added. Fox News reports that an “expert” FDA panel, which the FDA usually obeys, has recommended eliminating Tylenol-3 and other medicines that combine acetominophen with other painkillers, as well as prescription-only Percocet and Vicodin. They also recommended that the maximum recommended single dose of acetominophen be dropped from 1,000 milligrams to 650 milligrams and the maximum recommended daily dose from 4,000 milligrams to an unspecified amount. Fortunately, they rejected calls to eliminate other multi-ingredient medicines that include acetominophen.

Here comes the pain!

You Should Have Been Here Last Week

As a reasonably avid fisherman, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, or told someone else, “You should have been here last week!”  In fishing, this usually means one of two things.  Either the fish were really biting the previous week or you’re trying to convince the other fisherman that you’re not completely inept.  Interestingly, this phrase is also applicable in politics.

Glenn Garvin from the Miami Herald lays out the explanation of events leading to the Honduran “Coup.”  Garvin doesn’t really provide any information that hasn’t been explained elsewhere, at least in terms of the events. He does however, correctly refocus the debate from what happened last week to what happened in the week(s) prior to last week:

Here’s a question for all these new-found defenders of Honduran democracy: Where were you last week? Perhaps if some of these warnings about sticking to the constitution had been addressed to President Zelaya, the Honduran army would still be in the barracks where it belongs.

Garvin correctly calls out the United Nations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama asking why, if they are so concerned about the constitutionality of the new President of Honduras, they weren’t raising concerns about the activities, clearly unconstitutional, of President Zelaya during the previous weeks. 

While Garvin doesn’t address it, I would also ask why, if President Obama doesn’t believe the US should “meddle” in other country’s affairs, he has chosen to insert himself in this situation.  Let’s see, Iran, don’t meddle, Honduras, meddle.  Cuba, don’t meddle, Israel, meddle.  I’m beginning to wonder if Obama’s “don’t meddle” policy only applies to countries that have a current or an heir apparent dictator at the helm?

Like in fishing, “You should have been here last week” has multiple meanings in politics.  It can either mean, “Things went really well last week,” or it could mean that the person you’re conveying the sentiment to is inept and should have been paying attention to and engaged in the events of the previous week.

From the people of Honduras, “Hey, President Obama, you should have been here last week!”

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]