Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power United States Technology Politics

Harry Reid Pushes Nevada As "Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy" 369

Posted by timothy
from the flogging-sand dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Of all the 'mainstream' forms of renewable energy, it seems that geothermal power is always left in the shadows compared to solar and wind power. However, that looks set to change with news that the US Department of Energy will fund geothermal projects in northwestern Nevada and southeast Oregon. With funds from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the DOE has stated a 'conditional commitment' to provide a partial guarantee for a rumored $98.5 million loan to the Nevada Geothermal Power Company (NGP). According to US Senator Harry Reid, 'Northern Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Harry Reid Pushes Nevada As "Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy"

Comments Filter:
  • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @06:48PM (#32607808)
    ... that kind of kills it for me. Any politician making such proclamations must be taken with a pound of salt. Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?
    • by e9th (652576) <e9th@tupodex.cPOLLOCKom minus painter> on Thursday June 17, 2010 @06:53PM (#32607872)
      Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, is in danger of losing his long-held seat. He needs the pork badly, and the administration is more than willing to help him out.
      • by nebaz (453974) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @07:23PM (#32608134)

        It makes me wonder, if Senators bring in pork to their state to get re-elected, do you think there would be more pork in general if we repealed the direct election of senators, which some claim would give states more say in the Federal government? As is I think the fact that so much party money is on the line to keep representatives 'pure', which greatly distorts the idea of local elections.

        • by Hadlock (143607)

          That's an interesting argument and I'm hearing more and more about that coming out of the houston area. Do you have any links you'd like to share?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Radres (776901)

          Wouldn't senators then be forced to take actions that benefit those in the house, thereby corrupting the system in a different way?

          "You voted against all my bills! I'm not voting for you!"

          • by iluvcapra (782887) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @08:33PM (#32608574)

            The senators would be appointed by their state legislatures in a manner that's up to them -- in the 19th century the state legislature would hold a vote, or the governor would make an appointment subject to state senate advice and consent, or whatever.

            The problem with this approach was that it made senate seats a form of patronage for governors and state political machines, and while the people appointed might have been worthy there was zero democratic accountability, and senate appointment was a notoriously corrupt institution -- take the recent Rod Blagojevich nonsense and imagine it were the norm. Eliminating the direct election of senators in order to control "pork" or earmarks, which are themselves only about 2% of the federal budget, and are at least as big a problem with House members, is a pretty extreme solution.

        • It's an interesting idea, however Senators were previously appointed by their state's legislatures and I don't like the idea of going back to that system. It'll probably make them even more beholden to pork barrel projects to please their state legislators. I fear the problem would become even worse.
          • by nebaz (453974)

            I'm sorry I didn't clarify my position originally more. I am not at all in favor of going back to that system, as I agree that it would be even more incentive to play the "everything for my state" game. Personally, I think we should have term limits, but that will never fly as Congress itself would have to approve it. I also don't like having committee chair status based on Senate seniority, it gives even more incentive to stick with the incumbent.

      • by Hadlock (143607)

        And/Or; how much of that 98 million is directed into his golden parachute fund for getting the loan?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17, 2010 @08:14PM (#32608454)
        I don't know about how much Reid is in danger. His opponent is on record for a variety of...odd positions: eliminating the US Department of Education, pulling out of the United Nations, getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare; wants to protect our purity of essence and precious bodily fluids by opposing fluoridation of water, similarly wants to get rid of alcohol, thinks global warming is a hoax and is for drilling for oil here, there, everywhere. Is also the nutter who thinks overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States via a violent revolution is a good idea. All Reid has to do is frame the campaign that way and it's pull the lever for the nutter or pull the lever for Reid. He'll beat her by 10 points. That's how bad of a candidate Reid is--she should manage the 25% dead-enders at best. Still bringing in more federal dollars isn't a bad idea for Reid, pork or legitimate (but well-timed).
        • Perhaps Harry Reid meant more than one thing by "Saudi Arabia of Geothermal Energy"...

          In addition to floating on the vast sea of crude that makes them our bestest ever buddies, for as long as they are willing to sell, Saudi Arabia is home to some... aggressively retro sentiments.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by e9th (652576)
          Yes, Angle is not the candidate the Republican Party wanted. But the latest poll [usnews.com] I know of shows Reid trailing.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by chapstercni (238462)

          You say "eliminating the US Department of Education" like it is a bad thing!

          I'm all for it.
          I'm for pulling out of the United Nations.
          I'm for getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.
          Floridation of water? Debatable. But, a local gov't issue.
          Alcohol? Local issue.
          Global warming? It IS still being debated. And then, not proven that it is man-made warming.
          Drilling for oil? Please, lets! I am for keeping dollars in the USA, instead of being sent overseas.
          Really, the States Rights vs. Federal Rights i

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tmosley (996283)
          The Department of Education was founded to foster a better educational system in America. Now, 30 years later, American public schools are the laughingstock of the world, and we are at the utter BOTTOM of the list of quality educators in the world, even as our university system, which is NOT under their supervision, is the BEST in the world. It seems to me that we are throwing our money at a problem, and making it worse.

          And of course, you are also making a lot of shit up. I can't believe anyone modded
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by daem0n1x (748565)

          His opponent is on record for a variety of...odd positions: eliminating the US Department of Education, pulling out of the United Nations, getting rid of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare; wants to protect our purity of essence and precious bodily fluids by opposing fluoridation of water, similarly wants to get rid of alcohol, thinks global warming is a hoax and is for drilling for oil here, there, everywhere. Is also the nutter who thinks overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States via a violent revolution is a good idea

          So, that's what he means with Nevada being Saudi Arabia!

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by operagost (62405)
          James Madison specifically (even sarcastically) cited a public education system as a potential result of abuse of the "general welfare" clause, so I content that opposing the byzantine and wasteful Department of Education is, in fact, quite reasonable. The report that she wants to outlaw alcohol is false. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the point of her controversial statement was, but Prohibition was a progressive fiasco and I highly doubt that this TEA Party-supported candidate would call fo
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        You *really*

        Really

        Really

        Don't know about Reid's opponents this time around do you?

        Sharron Angle is fucking crazy. [huffingtonpost.com]

        Opposes fluoridation, the UN and the Department of Education.

        She's got a lot of tough questions ahead of her.

        • by clarkkent09 (1104833) * on Thursday June 17, 2010 @08:45PM (#32608640)
          She is not crazy at all and if you think huffington post is a reliable source of information on conservative candidates then you are crazy.

          How about having her describe her opinions instead instead: http://www.sharronangle.com/issues/ [sharronangle.com]

          Or how about the opinion of the people of Nevada: Angle: 50% Reid: 39% [rasmussenreports.com]
        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by iluvcapra (782887)

          She's got a lot of tough questions ahead of her.

          Maybe. As we all learned a few years ago, when a reporter asks a politician what newspapers or magazines they read [wikipedia.org], it's a vicious partisan attack. Angle and that unaccredited quack [talkingpointsmemo.com] Rand Paul, after some initial missteps, are never going to appear on a news program again, and will simply use the internet and the odd Fox News interview to do their public relations.

        • by DesScorp (410532) <DesScorp.Gmail@com> on Thursday June 17, 2010 @09:35PM (#32608908) Homepage Journal

          "Sharron Angle is fucking crazy. [huffingtonpost.com]"

          Well, if the HuffPuff said it, then I'm sold.

          BTW, if you think Sharon Angle is crazy for wanting to eliminate several departments in the Federal government, and phase out Social Security as it currently exists, then you're going to be mighty shocked at how many crazy people there are.

          • Yes, I am (Score:3, Insightful)

            ...then you're going to be mighty shocked at how many crazy people there are.

            Oh, believe me - I AM shocked by how many crazy people there are.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pgmrdlm (1642279)
          Just like Fox news is not a valid source to link to because it is pure republican bull shit. So is the mother fucking huffingtonpost.com. Its the liberal view wrapped in a different name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post [wikipedia.org]

          The Huffington Post, also referred to as HuffPo[2] or HuffPost[3], is a liberal/progressive American news website and aggregated blog founded by Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer, and Jonah Peretti, featuring various news sources and columnists.[4] The site offers coverage of politics, media, business, entertainment, living, style, the green movement, world news, and comedy, and is a top destination for news, blogs, and original content. The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, as a commentary outlet and alternative to conservative news websites like the Drudge Report.[5]

          Don't be a fucking hypocrite. If your going to provide a link, try to find an unbiased link. IN other words, your link is bull shit. Not a valid source. Next

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by geekoid (135745)

            It doesn't mean the link is bad. You just need to check references.

            in fact, Angle said she believed most fluoride used in water supplies could contain "lead, arsenic, [or] mercury." All of which is crazy talk.

            She supports making alcohol consumoption illegal.

            She thinks it's her job to 'protect' people. which from my reading means 'make them behave the way my belief dictates.:

            “I would tell you that I have the same feelings about legalizing marijuana, not medical marijuana, but just legalizing marijuana,

    • Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?

      What, you mean it isn't anymore? Last time I was there (in '87 or so) the locals were packing to drive out to the desert to witness an underground nuclear test. Those people who live in Nevada, they're quite special from what I saw. Perhaps related to Floridians.

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      And nuclear waste is warm right? We keep it in cooling ponds. This seems like two things that go great together. You got your nuclear waste into my geothermal power installation, no you got your geothermal power installation into my nuclear waste.

    • Agreed. I'm just tired of politicians. ALL of them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17, 2010 @06:49PM (#32607822)

    Las Vegas is the Saudi Arabia of prostitution, booze, gambling, and insane energy use.

    It looks like Harry Reid is trying to use the Saudia Arabia of geothermanl energy to power the Saudi Arabia of prostitution.

    As long as nobody tries to put a veil on the hookers this plan sounds good to me.

    • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @07:00PM (#32607936)

      Las Vegas is the Saudi Arabia of prostitution, booze, gambling, and insane energy use.

      "Forget your Saudi Arabia! I'm gonna make my own! With hookers! And blackjack! In fact, forget the energy! Aaw, screw the whole thing!"
      - Harry Reid

    • Las Vegas is the Saudi Arabia of prostitution, booze, gambling, and insane energy use.

      Prostitution is illegal in Clark County, NV, where Las Vegas is located. You are completely correct on the booze, gambling and insane energy use, however.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mooingyak (720677)

        Prostitution is illegal in Clark County, NV, where Las Vegas is located.

        And yet there are billboard advertisements for it in Vegas.

    • I suspect that their insane water use will bite them in the ass first.

      They have plenty of sun, lots of hot rocks, coal is cheap(if you don't mind huffing mercury and fly ash); but Nevada doesn't even have a convenient body of salt water to desalinate, much less enough of the fresh stuff.

      Las Vegas' exoticism will certainly be increased if everybody is running around in stillsuits and shouting "Long live the hookers!" and "The Dice Must Flow!"; but it'll be pretty much all downsides from there(remember,
  • by overshoot (39700) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @06:50PM (#32607832)
    is that unlike wind and solar, it's always on. This makes it much more difficult to explain why it won't meet baseline demand.
    • by peterofoz (1038508) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @07:06PM (#32607994) Homepage Journal
      NEWS FLASH 4/1/2015

      Federally funded Nevada geothermal plant sponsored by Harry Reid triggers massive earthquakes in San Francisco and causes the giant Yellowstone caldera in Wyoming to rise another 50 ft.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/15/swiss-geothermal-power-earthquakes-basel [guardian.co.uk]

      • by voss (52565) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @08:38PM (#32608610)

        Earthquakes in San Fransisco will be the least of your worries. The last eruption of the Yellowstone caldera 640,000 years ago
        shot 240 cubic miles of rock and dust into the sky.

      • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @11:06PM (#32609408) Journal

        Federally funded Nevada geothermal plant sponsored by Harry Reid triggers ... earthquakes ...

        Not completely a joke.

        High pressure injection of liquids into faults makes them act as hydraulic jacks with piston cross-sections measurable in square miles, pushing the faults open. If the faults are under even slight crosswise stress that cause earthquakes. (This was first discovered in Denver when the Rocky Mountain Arsenal used a deep injection well to attempt disposing of chemical warfare waste, later researched and documented.)

        Doing it with a liquid that can boil when the rocks are hot means you have less control over the process once the liquid is in place and being expanded by the heat. (IMHO there's also a possibility of activating a volcano.)

        While setting off quakes in northwestern Nevada probably won't bother the faults in San Francisco or Yosemite, it wouldn't be all that friendly to the people within a few tens of miles of the site.

    • by Solandri (704621) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @07:19PM (#32608092)
      The problem with geothermal is that after you extract the heat from the rocks, it takes time for the surrounding rock to heat up the cool spot you've created. This places a natural limit on the rate you can extract heat energy from a geothermal well, thus making it unsuitable for high population density areas like cities. The geological formations in some areas provide their own natural flow of subterranean water, thus constantly carrying in heat from other distant rocks to your geothermal well. But those are exceedingly rare.

      Regardless, I am very optimistic about geothermal for meeting the energy needs of low population density areas. On top of that, geothermal heat pumps [wikipedia.org] for heating and air conditioning, while not an energy source, improve efficiency so much that in both hot and cold regions of the country, they will typically pay for themselves in 3-7 years.
      • by Dunbal (464142) * on Thursday June 17, 2010 @07:34PM (#32608210)

        it takes time for the surrounding rock to heat up the cool spot you've created. This places a natural limit on the rate you can extract heat energy from a geothermal well

              While I'm no expert in the field I daresay that there's a "natural limit" to anything, including the energy produced from an oil burning plant. Surely the output of the plant is an engineering issue, and it's simply a matter of design.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by FooAtWFU (699187)
          Yes yes! My geothermal plant design involves burrowing down through the core of the earth and out the other side to the center of the Sun, where it's always warm. I'm currently awaiting a grant to conduct further study, and with luck we can break ground by 2009.
      • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday June 18, 2010 @08:23AM (#32611586) Homepage Journal

        The problem with geothermal is that after you extract the heat from the rocks, it takes time for the surrounding rock to heat up the cool spot you've created.

        The problem with geothermal power is cleaning up the toxic waste.

        I've said it before and I'll say it again: geothermal power is a total failure on all levels. I live within shootin' distance of The Geysers, the most geothermally active region known to exist on Earth. We have a geothermal plant here which is continually over budget and under-producing. The turbine blades are built by Halliburton, which is a disaster in itself. After they have been in service for a certain period of time, they must be cleaned of buildup of toxics like Arsenic which are released from the vent along with the steam. Most of the hot springs in town have measurable Arsenic content. This is simply pressure-washed off, and the slurry stored in open pits for evaporation. After this process has been repeated a sufficient number of times the pit is covered over and the walls raised. They used to put it in drums and bury them in a field on one of the roads out of town [google.com] but the drums started leaking and cows were being born with two heads and that sort of thing, so they "cleaned it up". Oh, sorry, THEY didn't clean it up, we did. It was a superfund site; we still have one of those [epa.gov] operating in town, for similar compounds. The "solution" was to dig it all up, put in a rubber liner, and bury it again.

        There are other types of geothermal power options, like heat pipes, but all you have to know about them is that they are terribly inefficient (not that any geothermal plant in the world is producing any amazing amount of power) and they don't last, just like the turbine blades in our example. You're always digging things up and replacing them, which is terribly impractical. The simple truth is that solar panels could repay the energy cost of production in under seven years back in the 1970s and if all the money spent on geothermal plants was spent on even PV solar plants we would have produced a lot more power for the same amount of money.

        Anyone promoting Geothermal power for low environmental impact is either ignorant or trolling.

    • by toygeek (473120)

      The problem with Geothermal is that its *not* always on. That is, its always on until it isn't, at all. Earthquakes (which Nevada is prone to, not as much as socal but we get them plenty!) and other movement of the earth can cause whole geothermal areas to go cold.

      There is one thing I can tell you for sure about Nevada. We have tons of open space, and if its not *windy*, its *sunny*.

  • About time! (Score:5, Funny)

    by migla (1099771) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @06:51PM (#32607840)

    There are far too many women driving around in Nevada!

    • I don't think he means it like that, he's talking about it being the place the money comes from to fund people to fly into tall buildings one continent over. Look out Tokyo!
    • And in case of Vegas they expose far more than their eyes.
  • Naturally (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @06:51PM (#32607842) Homepage

    Of course it is. Since it's your state, Mr. Reid, it couldn't possibly be anywhere else, right?

    That's one of the things I always hated about politicians. They always think their state is the best at ::insert arbitrary thing here::. I got news for you, bud: it's America. Hardly anything here is the best. A lot of it is very good, some of it is even awesome, and some things are even legendary in how amazing they are...but I think saying best is generally pushing it.

    -American who loves his country, which is why he can be honest about it

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Brett Buck (811747)

      I wouldn't worry too much about Harry's opinions, he's fading in to history pretty darn soon.

    • Re:Naturally (Score:4, Interesting)

      by lawpoop (604919) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @08:08PM (#32608422) Homepage Journal

      That's one of the things I always hated about politicians. They always think their state is the best

      It's not a problem with politicians, it's a problem with the system. The constitution says that a senator represents a state, a congressperson a district. If you want it to be different, we need to have a body that is elected by the American people as a whole.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cowscows (103644)

        So what? Every state/district/neighborhood deserves to have people fighting for it. The USA is such a large stretch of land with such a diverse bunch of people/communities, that for many problems there isn't just one solution that's "best for the country."

  • by denzacar (181829) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @06:52PM (#32607850) Journal

    How much is that in sensible scientific measurements like Libraries of Congress or Football Fields per Square Barleycorn?

  • I don't pretend to any knowledge on the subject, but wouldn't the Yellowstone Caldera [wikipedia.org] be the picture perfect place for the development of geothermal energy?
    • by Daetrin (576516)
      That's exactly what i was going to say. I'm willing to believe it if someone can provide some numbers from a reputable geologist, since i don't know a lot about the field myself, but until then i'm far more willing to believe that Wyoming would be the US's "Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy" than i would Nevada.
      • by macraig (621737)

        i'm far more willing to believe that Wyoming would be the US's "Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy" than i would Nevada

        Based on a few articles in National Geographic you read as a kid and a few PBS specials on volcanic activity, right? We all know those sources are authoritative and complete and never exclusionary, right? It's good that you want testimony from an expert(s), especially since your presumption is based on such an incomplete survey in the first place.

    • I don't pretend to any knowledge on the subject, but wouldn't the Yellowstone Caldera be the picture perfect place for the development of geothermal energy?

      Or central New Mexico (the Socorro Seismic Anomaly [nmt.edu]), where there's another honking huge magma chamber. Or pretty near anywhere in the Cascades, or any of Arizona's volcanic fields, or anywhere near Pacific subduction zone, or ...

    • by nephilimsd (936642) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @07:21PM (#32608102)
      Actually, as a resident of Reno (it's not as bad as it sounds.. really) I can definitively say that there is more geothermal energy over a wider area here than in Yellowstone. My understanding is that Yellowstone has a very strong, but very locialized pocket of usable energy, whereas the entire greater Carson-Reno area is tappable for energy. There have been quite a few apartment complexes and neighborhood groups who have pitched together to fund geothermal wells in this area, and effectively end up paying about 15k as a one-time cost to eliminate an electric bill for life (well, the life of the well, anyway). Best part is, because more energy is generated than can reasonably be used by 15-20 houses, the rest gets sold back to the electric company, and NV Energy takes care of maintenance on the well in exchange.
    • No, Wyoming is the Iraq of geothermal energy and Texas is the Afghanistan of geothermal energy.

      Wait, what are we talking about?

  • by bugi (8479)

    And where pray tell does he propose to get the necessary water for this project?

    • And where pray tell does he propose to get the necessary water for this project?

      From the Colorado River -- Nevada has been trying to get a greater allocation for a long time and this would get the Feds in on their side. Or, of course, there's all the sewage from Las Vegas. Whenever the wind is headed out of state they can just use that for coolant.

      • From the Colorado River -- Nevada has been trying to get a greater allocation for a long time and this would get the Feds in on their side. Or, of course, there's all the sewage from Las Vegas. Whenever the wind is headed out of state they can just use that for coolant.

        Read the article - they're talking Northern Nevada. That's about 450 miles from Las Vegas. The only time Reno is near Vegas is on CSI. And that's no credible source; half of the cast can't even say "Nevada" correctly.

      • by iluvcapra (782887)
        It's hard for me to believe the Colorado could contribute to any more significant infrastructure/industrial projects -- the flow has been damed and diverted so many times it doesn't even consistently reach the ocean anymore.
    • 1) Suck up all the water from the Gulf
      2) Burn off the oil to produce power
      3) Ship the cleaned water to Nevada
      4) Profit!
      So simple, it doesn't even need a ?????? step!
    • by beej (82035)

      And where pray tell does he propose to get the necessary water for this project?

      Same place they're getting the heat, I should imagine.

  • Some More Sources: (Score:4, Informative)

    by BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @07:04PM (#32607976) Homepage Journal
    Here are a few more sources for info. regarding the contract...posted for no other reason than my own annoyance with Inhabitat =P

    DOE Press Release with Media Contact Number [energy.gov]

    Sustainable Business Blog, apparently the initial plant will produce 49.5 MW in capacity [sustainablebusiness.com]

    Home website of NGP, the contract winner [nevadageothermal.com]

    Write up from EON, with quite a bit more info, including contact info. for various parties involved. [businesswire.com]
  • by BCW2 (168187)
    I was part of a crew that put in a geothermal installation at New Mexico State University the still provides hot water to the dorms and heats the 2 swimming pools. Four and a half miles of insulated pipe, a heat exchanger and a 25,000 gallon hot water tank. The University Presidents house has it's own system. So this isn't all that new. The only things that would improve it are better piping and shallower hot water. We had wells delivering 142 degrees F at the wellhead but they were in the 950 foot range an
  • Geothermal energy is everywhere. The Earth has about 5000 years' supply. The skills and equipment for getting it are the same as drilling for oil. The only downside is that geothermal production brings up nasty stuff (such as sulfur) that has to be handled.

    Geothermal would be a good activity for the oil drillers displaced by the moratorium on gulf drilling or more generally if we switch to electric cars and alternative fuels.

  • Hot Rocks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EEPROMS (889169) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @09:32PM (#32608892)
    Actually when it comes to Geothermal energy production you don't actually need volcanic activity at all. Another method of collecting and converting geothermal energy is the hot dry rocks [wikipedia.org] (HDR) method. The advantage with HDR is that you dont have to install power converters in geologically unstable environs like in iceleand etc thus you can imagine the insurance costs are way lower.

"And do you think (fop that I am) that I could be the Scarlet Pumpernickel?" -- Looney Tunes, The Scarlet Pumpernickel (1950, Chuck Jones)

Working...