Two choices: "dirty" oil or "conflict" oil

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

maxiep

RIP Dr. Jack
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
28,321
Likes
5,919
Points
113
I would agree. There are times one has to hold their nose and do what they have to do.
 
We don't have to choose. We can have both dirty oil and conflict oil. Let's invade Canada today.

barfo
 
Can't we have green energy instead?
 
Can't we have green energy instead?

We're as close to basing our energy needs on hope, dreams, and unicorns as we are of basing it on renewable energy. Yet Obama's at it again today, saying that our recovery needs to be based on green energy.
 
How much are you willing to pay to live in an oil-free environment?

It's not even a cost issue at this point. How close to home is westnob willing to live his life in order to live in an oil-free environment? Even electrical cars run primarily on coal-fired electricity.

Why don't we just go back to covered wagons?
 
I'll just address all at once;
Electricity does not have to come from coal, coal may be cheap economically but those aren't your mountains being blown up. Biodiesel from algae is still a viable source. Coal may be dirty, but the emissions can still be captured with... ALGAE! to make biodiesel. look up the MIT coal plant, I've posted the video before.

Anyone who denies that we went into Iraq for greed is kidding themselves. That money and the lives could have been better spent on researching improvements in alternative sources. (and yes the OP was about conflict oil)
 
I'll just address all at once;
Electricity does not have to come from coal, coal may be cheap economically but those aren't your mountains being blown up. Biodiesel from algae is still a viable source. Coal may be dirty, but the emissions can still be captured with... ALGAE! to make biodiesel. look up the MIT coal plant, I've posted the video before.

Anyone who denies that we went into Iraq for greed is kidding themselves. That money and the lives could have been better spent on researching improvements in alternative sources. (and yes the OP was about conflict oil)

And how much are you willing to pay/adjust your life with less electricity to have that outcome?
 
It always amazes me that people who have lived through the internet/computer revolution are so quick to assume that gasoline will never die. 170 years ago people were just as sure about whale oil.

Just because we've used the same technology for a hundred years (gasoline driving a piston engine) doesn't mean we'll do the same for the next hundred.
 
It always amazes me that people who have lived through the internet/computer revolution are so quick to assume that gasoline will never die. 170 years ago people were just as sure about whale oil.

Just because we've used the same technology for a hundred years (gasoline driving a piston engine) doesn't mean we'll do the same for the next hundred.

Good point.

However, there is a transition time- and we're in it and will be for several decades.
 
And how much are you willing to pay/adjust your life with less electricity to have that outcome?

Less electricity is a tough one. When I paid the electricity bill, I opted for the extra green energy cost if that matters.
 
Less electricity is a tough one. When I paid the electricity bill, I opted for the extra green energy cost if that matters.

My wife & I have always "lived green" even before the term was used. I've been recycling since the mid 1970's, I always live in small houses (current one is 875SF), I have special room convective heaters from Europe that cost a few dollars per month to use in the winter, we hang our clothes to dry whenever possible, always drive fairly fuel efficient vehicles and drive 55 MPH... Our only vice is our hot tub- and I feel guilty everytime I have a nice long hot soak in the winter.
 
It always amazes me that people who have lived through the internet/computer revolution are so quick to assume that gasoline will never die. 170 years ago people were just as sure about whale oil.

Just because we've used the same technology for a hundred years (gasoline driving a piston engine) doesn't mean we'll do the same for the next hundred.

I'm not talking about the next 100 years. The next 30 years will do me just fine. The issue is that these so-called "green" technologies aren't yet up to snuff.
 
Less electricity is a tough one. When I paid the electricity bill, I opted for the extra green energy cost if that matters.

What if your electricity cost doubled or tripled? What if you had roving blackouts during times of peak demand?

I'm all for "green" energy, but I want it to be abundant and economically feasible. Right now, it's not.
 
True, but we can't just say "we have growing pains, stop the growth!"

No one says that. The financial reward for the person/company that creates a "green", abundant and economically viable energy source will drive the market. You can't force it. You can help it along, but you can't force it.
 
My wife & I have always "lived green" even before the term was used. I've been recycling since the mid 1970's, I always live in small houses (current one is 875SF), I have special room convective heaters from Europe that cost a few dollars per month to use in the winter, we hang our clothes to dry whenever possible, always drive fairly fuel efficient vehicles and drive 55 MPH... Our only vice is our hot tub- and I feel guilty everytime I have a nice long hot soak in the winter.

When Al Gore feels guilty about his carbon footprint, then I'll feel guilty about mine.
 
My wife & I have always "lived green" even before the term was used. I've been recycling since the mid 1970's, I always live in small houses (current one is 875SF), I have special room convective heaters from Europe that cost a few dollars per month to use in the winter, we hang our clothes to dry whenever possible, always drive fairly fuel efficient vehicles and drive 55 MPH... Our only vice is our hot tub- and I feel guilty everytime I have a nice long hot soak in the winter.

I tip my hat to you good sir! Well done!
 
This company got $60 million in Stimulus and MA state money to develop solar energy. Two years later, it's basically done, and earlier this year, it laid off 800 people.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view.bg?articleid=1358998

Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy, plans asset sale

Evergreen Solar Inc., the Marlboro clean-energy company that received millions in state subsidies to build an ill-fated Bay State factory, has filed for bankruptcy.

Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March and cut 800 jobs, has been trying to rework its debt for months. The company announced today it is seeking a reorganization in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and also reached a deal with certain note holders to restructure its debt and sell off certain assets.
 
It always amazes me that people who have lived through the internet/computer revolution are so quick to assume that gasoline will never die. 170 years ago people were just as sure about whale oil.

Just because we've used the same technology for a hundred years (gasoline driving a piston engine) doesn't mean we'll do the same for the next hundred.

It always amazes me how people on this board completely miss the point of what is being discussed.

Nobody is against "green" technology; the point is that we are nowhere near being able to run our energy grid and transportation needs on "green" energy, and wasting tens of billions of taxpayers funds on it while at the same time funding oil recovery operations in Brazil is the stuff of fools. If you haven't noticed, we're in a prolonged period of unemployment, food prices are rising on an almost weekly basis, and we have pie-in-the-sky Obama saying that green energy is going to turn it all around.

He's either delusional, ignorant, or flat-out lying about the present state of "green" energy not only in this country, but the world.
 
It always amazes me that people who have lived through the internet/computer revolution are so quick to assume that gasoline will never die. 170 years ago people were just as sure about whale oil.

Just because we've used the same technology for a hundred years (gasoline driving a piston engine) doesn't mean we'll do the same for the next hundred.

Apples to oranges.

The internet/computer revolution only happened because it made people's lives easier / more convenient and it evolved with the technology. It wasn't a matter of having to convince people to take a less comfortable lifestyle in order to force inferior technology down their throats.

If you want to use the analogy of the computer revolution, it would be like saying in the 1980's that everybody needs to have 4GB of ram and 3Ghz processors in a laptop form factor. Now, how much are you willing to pay for that?
 
Apples to oranges.

The internet/computer revolution only happened because it made people's lives easier / more convenient and it evolved with the technology. It wasn't a matter of having to convince people to take a less comfortable lifestyle in order to force inferior technology down their throats.

If you want to use the analogy of the computer revolution, it would be like saying in the 1980's that everybody needs to have 4GB of ram and 3Ghz processors in a laptop form factor. Now, how much are you willing to pay for that?

I don't recall 4 Gb RAM and 3 GHz processors being considered "inferior technology" in the 1980s.

barfo
 
I don't recall 4 Gb RAM and 3 GHz processors being considered "inferior technology" in the 1980s.

barfo

That's the point. Mook wanted to use the computer analogy, and it isn't applicable.
 
More proof of the "green" boondoggle.

Seattle's 'green jobs' program a bust

Last year, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city had won a coveted $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. The unglamorous work of insulating crawl spaces and attics had emerged as a silver bullet in a bleak economy – able to create jobs and shrink carbon footprint – and the announcement came with great fanfare.

McGinn had joined Vice President Joe Biden in the White House to make it. It came on the eve of Earth Day. It had heady goals: creating 2,000 living-wage jobs in Seattle and retrofitting 2,000 homes in poorer neighborhoods.

But more than a year later, Seattle's numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.

"The jobs haven't surfaced yet," said Michael Woo, director of Got Green, a Seattle community organizing group focused on the environment and social justice.

"It's been a very slow and tedious process. It's almost painful, the number of meetings people have gone to. Those are the people who got jobs. There's been no real investment for the broader public."

'Who's got the money'


The buildings that have gotten financing so far include the Washington Athletic Club and a handful of hospitals, a trend that concerns community advocates who worry the program isn't helping lower-income homeowners.

"Who's benefitting from this program right now – it doesn't square with what the aspiration was," said Howard Greenwich, the policy director of Puget Sound Sage, an economic-justice group. He urged the city to revisit its social-equity goals.

"I think what it boils down to is who's got the money."

Organizers and policy experts blame the economy, bureaucracy and bad timing for the program's mediocre results. Called Community Power Works, the program funds low-interest loans and incentives for buildings to do energy-efficient upgrades. They include hospitals, municipal buildings, big commercial structures and homes.

Half the funds are reserved for financing and engaging homeowners in Central and Southeast Seattle, a historically underserved area. Most of the jobs are expected to come from this sector.

But the timing of the award has led to hurdles in enticing homeowners to bite on retrofits. The city had applied for the grant at a time of eco-giddiness, when former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels was out-greening all other politicians except for Al Gore. Retrofits glowed with promise to boost the economy, reduce consumer bills and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

"A triple win," is how Biden characterized it.

By the time Seattle won the award, homeowners were battered by unemployment and foreclosures. The long-term benefits of energy upgrades lacked the tangible punch of a new countertop. And the high number of unemployed construction workers edged out new weatherization installers for the paltry number of jobs.

"Really, we couldn't have rolled out this program at a worse time," said Greenwich, who had helped write the city's grant proposal.

"The outcomes are very disappointing. I think the city has worked really hard, but no one anticipated just how bad this recession was going to be, and the effect it was going to have on this program."

City feels 'cautiously optimistic'

As of last week, 337 homeowners had applied for the program. Fourteen had gotten a loan, or were in the process of getting one.

"Yes, we're not seeing as many completed retrofits as we wanted to," said Joshua Curtis, the city's manager for Community Power Works. "While everyone would like to see more upgrades, I think we're feeling cautiously optimistic."

Continued at link
 
A government-funded "green" recovery is simply not possible at this point.

Drill now, drill often.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Solyndra-Filing-a-Disaster-for-Obama-128816968.html

Solyndra Filing a Disaster for Obama

President Obama faces political catastrophe in the form of Solyndra -- a San Francisco Bay area solar company that he touted as a gleaming example of green technology. It has announced it will declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy. More than 1,100 people will lose their jobs.

During a visit to the Fremont facility in spring of 2010, the President said the factory "is just a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism and the fact that we continue to have the best universities in the world, the best technology in the world, and most importantly the best workers in the world. "

It's not his statements the administration will regret; it's the loan guarantees. The President was celebrating $535 million in federal promises from the Department of Energy to the solar startup. The administration didn't do its due diligence, says the Government Accountability Office. "There's a consequence if you don't follow a rigorous process that's transparent," Franklin Rusco of GAO told the website iWatch News.
The President touted the federally back money as a way to create jobs. The President's opponents immediately jumped on the deal as Solyndra made its first layoffs.

Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns of Florida warned, "I am concerned that the DOE is providing loans and loan guarantees to firms that aren't capable of competing in the global market, even with government subsidies."

Another critic, Fred Upton of Michigan: "The unfortunate reality is that loan guarantee highlights many of the systemic flaws associated with the stimulus in the mad dash to spend hundreds of billions of dollars."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top