|
Post by trbixler on Jun 6, 2012 2:22:30 GMT
"Where will you be when the lights go out in America? " "The passage of time is marked with milestones. We each know where we were when President Kennedy was shot, when the Berlin Wall came down, and on the morning of 9-11. If we continue on the current course, you’ll be telling your grandchildren where you were the night the lights went out in America. America’s energy policy is being dominated by environmentalists’ priorities--regardless of the impact to the American economy, individual communities, or economically-challenged citizens. The plans to shut down or limit America’s abundant, available, and affordable energy are organized, coordinated, and effective. The results will be “lights out in America--a dim future. On May 30, the Wall Street Journal alerted us to the Sierra Club’s new campaign aimed at killing the natural gas industry: “Beyond Natural Gas.” WSJ reports: “This is no idle threat. The Sierra Club has deep pockets funded by liberal foundations and knows how to work the media and politicians. The lobby helped to block new nuclear plants for more than 30 years, it has kept much of the U.S. off-limits to oil drilling, and its ‘Beyond Coal’ campaign has all but shut down new coal plants. One of its priorities now will be to make shale gas drilling anathema within the Democratic Party.” How do they think we will power America? With intermittent, ineffective, and uneconomical wind and solar energy. Why are the Sierra Club, et al, able to wield so much power? The Obama administration is friendly to their cause. Many of the agencies regulating domestic energy development are staffed with personnel culled from within the ranks of the environmental movement. And, they are not shy about their biases--as was revealed in the now famous “crucify” comment. They also use their vast resources to sue, and sue often. As a new report from the Kentucky Coal Association (KCA) reveals, they don’t just sue the coal miners and the coal-fueled power plants, they sue the EPA to force new standards which are often unattainable--thereby effectively stopping all use of coal. (Remember, natural gas is the next target.) " icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 17, 2012 16:13:26 GMT
Now how is one to know if it is a real fraudulent or a fraudulent fraudulent credit. Why its so sustainable and clean we must support it with tax dollars. Of course never evaluate the results against any standard except did you do as I told you to do. "Md. man accused of selling bogus energy credits" "Companies that market petroleum in the United States are being required to produce renewable fuels such as biodiesel made from vegetable oils or purchase credits, known as renewable identification numbers, or RINs, from producers of those fuels to satisfy the requirement designed to increase clean energy.In Congress, Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee say the EPA's management of the situation appears to have made a bad situation worse, punishing innocent participants who were defrauded. "As a result, the risk of unknowingly buying problematic RINs is great and so the renewable fuels marketplace is in turmoil," Reps. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., said in a letter earlier this year to an EPA official about problems in the program." hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RENEWABLE_ENERGY_FRAUD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-17-08-43-41
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 21, 2012 0:18:28 GMT
Mr. Green's friends did very well. Taxpayers no so much. "$9 Billion in ‘Stimulus’ for Solar, Wind Projects Made 910 Final Jobs -- $9.8 Million Per Job" "(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs -- annual operation and maintenance positions -- meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs. At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs -- which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600). Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce." cnsnews.com/news/article/9-billion-stimulus-solar-wind-projects-made-910-final-jobs-98-million-job
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 21, 2012 23:55:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Jun 25, 2012 13:02:04 GMT
'Green' Company Awarded Up to $120 Million Promised 70 Jobs — Creates Just Three Jobs in Three Years Capitol Confidential | 6/25/2012 | Jarrett Skorup and Matt Needham A "green" energy company that received millions of dollars from taxpayers while promising 70 jobs by the end of this year has created only three and received strong criticism from environmental and fiscal groups across the political spectrum. In the company's filing with the SEC, Mascoma lists as a risk factor that it has "no experience in the markets in which we intend to operate." The state of Michigan kicked in $20 million; the Feds threw in $100 million. Pretty soon you're talkin' real money here... www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17123------------------------ You can go green or you can go stupid. Why not save time and do both?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 27, 2012 14:33:49 GMT
Coming to the U.S. soon under the direction of Obama's Lisa Jackson. "German Pols Now Demanding Energy Welfare For Its Citizens – 800,000 Have Had Their Electricity Cut Off!" "Energy poverty is sweeping over modern Germany like never before. Flagship German newspaper Die Welt has an online report titled: Fast 800.000 Deutsche können Strom nicht bezahlen. In English: Almost 800,000 Germans cannot pay for electricity. " "So in summary, here’s Germany’s latest energy plan: 1) Force power companies to buy exorbitantly-priced, inefficient and intermittent-supply green energy on one side, and then force them to give it away, or sell it at a low price, on the sales side! How long can that go on before it all collapses? Not only is electricity to be given away, DIE WELT also brings up another SPD scheme, one of course that the other parties will join in on: Moreover, there should also be a billion-euro subsidy program so that, for example, energy saving refrigerators can be bought.” There you have it. First the government took over the energy sector, and now we see it is moving in to take over private households. If this allowed to happen, then in 10 years Germany will no longer be recognizable. You can think out the rest." notrickszone.com/2012/06/26/german-pols-now-demanding-energy-welfare-for-its-citizens-800000-have-had-their-electricity-cut-off/
|
|
|
Post by julianb on Jun 28, 2012 9:16:27 GMT
I'm envious of those electricity prices, at the moment I pay av. 30cents unit plus $60 a quarter for "supply" . Don't think the rise won't be quicker, our (Australian) carbon tax hasn't cut in yet either. The only answer is to get the left wing loons out of power. A few years ago I read that the aluminium companies here had contracts for 3cents a unit, no wonder they are getting out, likewise steel makers.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 28, 2012 19:48:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 28, 2012 20:03:03 GMT
Coal, who needs coal when you can buy green Chinese solar panels. Caution government at work fixing market imbalance. Just send your solar tax credits to China. "Abound Solar to Close Its Doors, Will Seek Bankruptcy" "Abound Solar Inc., a U.S. solar manufacturer that was awarded a $400 million U.S. loan guarantee, will close its doors and file for bankruptcy because its panels were too expensive to compete with Chinese products. Abound borrowed about $70 million against the guarantee, the Loveland, Colorado-based company said today in a statement. It plans to file for bankruptcy protection in Colorado next week. The failure will follow that of Solyndra LLC, which shut down in August after receiving a $535 million loan guarantee from the same U.S. Energy Department program. Abound stopped production in February to focus on reducing costs after a global oversupply and increasing competition from China drove down the price of solar panels by half last year. " www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-28/abound-solar-to-close-as-early-as-today-greentech-media-says
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 6, 2012 13:06:05 GMT
More wealth redistribution, our tax dollars to someone else. "Lights go dim on another energy project" "A geothermal energy company with a $98.5 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration for an alternative energy project in Nevada — which received hearty endorsements from Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — faces financial problems, and the company’s auditors have questioned whether it can stay in business. Much like Solyndra LLC, a California solar-panel manufacturer with a $535 million federal loan guarantee that went bankrupt, Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP) has incurred $98 million in net losses over the past several years, has substantial debts and does not generate enough cash from its current operations after debt-service costs, an internal audit said." www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/4/lights-go-dim-on-another-energy-project/
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 7, 2012 3:12:59 GMT
Mr. Green wants us all to dance to the tune, because, well the "environmentalists' say so? "A Skeptic Looks at Alternative Energy" "It happened for the best reason there is in politics: money. Welcome to the world of new renewable energies, where the subsidies rule—and consumers pay. Without these subsidies, renewable energy plants other than hydroelectric and geothermal ones can’t yet compete with conventional generators. There are several reasons, starting with relatively low capacity factors—the most electricity a plant can actually produce divided by what it would produce if it could be run full time. The capacity factor of a typical nuclear power plant is more than 90 percent; for a coal-fired generating plant it’s about 65 to 70 percent. A photovoltaic installation can get close to 20 percent—in sunny Spain—and a wind turbine, well placed on dry land, from 25 to 30 percent. Put it offshore and it may even reach 40 percent. To convert to either of the latter two technologies, you must also figure in the need to string entirely new transmission lines to places where sun and wind abound, as well as the need to manage a more variable system load, due to the intermittent nature of the power. All of these complications are well known, and all of them have been too lightly dismissed by alternative energy backers and the media. Most egregious of all is the boosters’ failure to recognize the time it takes to convert to any new source of energy, no matter how compelling the arguments for it may be. An example is the 2008 plan promoted by former vice president Al Gore, which called for replacing all fossil-fueled generation in the United States in just a decade. Another is Google’s plan, announced in 2008 and abandoned in 2011, which envisaged cutting out coal generation by 2030. Trumping them all was a 2009 article in Scientific American by Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil engineering at Stanford University, and Mark Delucchi, a researcher in transportation studies at the University of California, Davis. They proposed converting the energy economy of the entire world to renewable sources by 2030. History and a consideration of the technical requirements show that the problem is much greater than these advocates have supposed." spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/0
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 9, 2012 2:59:51 GMT
Oh the CO2 of it all. Of course I am waiting for some here to defend the practice of taxing the dead for their CO2 ah footprint. "Family slugged with 'carbon tax fee' for funeral" "A Melbourne family who claim they were slugged an extra $55 "carbon tax charge" when burying a relative were told "even the dead don't escape the carbon tax"." news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8496121
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 9, 2012 3:11:38 GMT
Oh the CO2 of it all. Of course I am waiting for some here to defend the practice of taxing the dead for their CO2 ah footprint. "Family slugged with 'carbon tax fee' for funeral" "A Melbourne family who claim they were slugged an extra $55 "carbon tax charge" when burying a relative were told "even the dead don't escape the carbon tax"." news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8496121Have they been fined or jailed yet for speaking out?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 18, 2012 4:11:07 GMT
Where is that money? Caution government AGW at work. "Energy Dept. 'Unable to Locate' $500,000 in Equipment Bought With Stimulus Money" "(CNSNews.com) – An audit conducted by the Energy Department’s Office of Inspector General was "unable to locate" $500,000 worth of equipment purchased with stimulus money by a recipient of funds distributed through the deparment's “Advanced Batteries and Hybrid Components Program,” according to an audit report published by the OIG. The DOE said it would not be "appropriate" to release the name of stimulus-money recipient where the $500,000 worth of equipment could not be located." cnsnews.com/news/article/energy-dept-unable-locate-500000-equipment-bought-stimulus-money
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 18, 2012 4:16:44 GMT
More government at work. "Media Fail: Chevy Volt Makes NO Money, Costs Taxpayers Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars Per Car" "The Jurassic Press is missing much in their reporting on the $50 billion bailout of General Motors (GM). The Press is open channeling for President Barack Obama - allowing him to frame the bailout exactly as he wishes in the 2012 Presidential election. The President is running in large part on the bailout’s $30+ billion loss, uber-failed “success.” And the Press is acting as his stenographers. An epitome of this bailout nightmare mess is the electric absurdity that is the Chevrolet Volt. The Press is at every turn covering up - rather than covering - the serial failures of President Obama’s signature vehicle. The Press has failed to mention at least five Volt fires, myopically focusing on the one the Obama Administration hand-selected for attention. The Press has failed to mention that the Volt fire problem remains unsolved. Is it the battery? Is it the charging station? Is it the charging cable? All of the above? GM and the Administration don’t know. And the Press ain’t breaking their necks trying to find out. In more recent news, the Press has almost as one hailed the June Volt sales increase." "GM sells 1760 Volts in June, double from 2011 Wow. Huge number. The Press also fails to put this pathetic tally in perspective. The Chevy Cruze is basically a Volt without the dead-weight, flammable 400-lb. electric battery. Which makes it $17,000, rather than the Volt’s $41,000. Chevy in June sold 18,983 Cruzes - more than ten times the number of Volts. And that’s down 1/3 from last June’s 24,648. But that feeble Volt tally has the Press all revved up. And speaking of the Volt’s ridiculous $41,000 sticker price: According to multiple GM executives there is little or no profit being made on each Volt built at a present cost of around $40,000. Furthermore, the $700 million of development that went into the car has to be recouped. Get that? GM makes “little or no profit” on the Volt. So it makes perfect sense that GM would spend millions of dollars advertising it, does it not? No ideological or campaign intent there, eh President Obama? Look, I get it, it’s fun. I just spent $1 million - of your money - advertising free air. On which my profit margin is just as good as GM’s is on the Volt. Read more: newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2012/07/17/media-fail-chevy-volt-makes-gm-no-money-costs-taxpayers-hundreds-thous#ixzz20wb8DhO8
|
|