Green Energy doesn't mean Oil Independence

Discussion in 'Energy' started by Evangelical, Apr 19, 2009.

  1. Evangelical
    Offline

    Evangelical Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2009
    Messages:
    306
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +13
    Why does Obama equate Green Energy projects with "independence from foreign oil"?

    Does Obama not realize that cars use oil, not concentrated solar power plants, or wind turbines, or geothermal power plants...etc.?

    How does he propose to ween us off of oil by wasting all our time building solar and wind power when we can build Nuclear power and be done with it?
     
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.
     
  3. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,728
    Thanks Received:
    4,486
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,050
    Why does the first step have to cost billions or trillions of tax payer dollars?

    A huge part of the green movement is not intended to "save the planet" but rather to hand the government more of our money and resources that it can waste.

    If anyone, including our esteemed politicians were actually serious about green energy and technology, they would not be pushing pie in the sky uber-expensive taxpayer funded projects.

    If anyone were really serious and not just looking for some sexy futuristic sound bite to be endlessly replayed during the next news cycle, they would be pushing for new building codes that would require more energy efficient design that would save billions more than 100 square acres of multimillion dollar windmills could ever produce.

    The push would be for new building codes that used not wood stick construction but rather insulated concrete form construction that would not only lessen our deforestation but would result in stronger safer homes and buildings. How about tax credits for homeowners and businesses that install solar hot water heaters, solar hot air generators etc. It would be easier and less expensive to have millions of people make small cumulative differences than it would be for the government to step in with massive taxpayer funded projects that will, as these projects always have been, rife with graft, corruption and waste.

    So if you want to get "serious" about energy and the future then roll up your sleeves and get fucking serious.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
     
  5. RoadVirus
    Offline

    RoadVirus <insert pithy title here>

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,277
    Thanks Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Illinois
    Ratings:
    +583
    Because whenever a cool new fad comes along, the government has to have it's dirty little mits in it. If not, they'll regulate it till the cows come home and it won't be so cool anymore.
     
  6. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,680
    In this case it's one step per generation right?
     
  7. krotchdog
    Offline

    krotchdog BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +45
    Excellent question, why, first and foremost we can see Obama has done nothing to increase our supply of domestic oil, on the contrary they have just designated more areas as "protected wilderness."

    Congress Expands Protected Wilderness

    So Obama states he wants independence from saudi arabian oil, he calls it an addiction, yet he takes zero steps to stop this addiction, if its a addiction why is he taking no action except to make it more difficult to develop our own.

    The oil industry is essentially controled by the government, you cannot drill, refine, import, transport or store oil with out paying taxes to the government at every stage, without complying with endless rules and regulation. Oil is the largest commodity in the world, it is life, it is progress, it is the blood of the world, Obama seeks to control us through the control of oil.

    Dont get me wrong, Obama is just the latest in a long list of politicians using oil for power and wealth, to control the people.

    From 1977 to 2004 oil companies made around 630 billion in proftit while paying 518 billion in taxes, on top of that consumers paid over a trillion dollars in taxes. I dont like figures, everyone has a way to manipulate the data so figures in my opinion must be taken extremely lightly.

    Bottom line the government makes more profit from oil than corporations or individuals.

    So why does Obama equate independence from foriegn oil with green energy when the government is in complete control of oil, when the government forbids us to drill or refine, when the government profits the most from oil, is the government really going to give up the power over us by loosening its grip on oil.

    Green energy is going to give the government even more control, a larger percentage of our money is going to green energy. Directly our tax money is used to produce green energy for the profit of government and oil companies and the petrochemical corportations. It will take a larger increase in the production of petroleum to make green energy. The essential elements in all phases of manufaturing green energy are derived from a barrel of petroleum. At current production there is a shortage of these basic building blocks.

    Petroleum production must increase, mining of minerals must increase, Dow chemical must increase in size to meet the demand for the materials to produce green energy.

    So the answer to the question is simple, Obama is a politician, Obama is a lawyer, his statements serve a purpose, they further Obama's idealogy, they secure Obama's future.

    Obama knows that increased green energy will not decrease oil use, it will increase oil use, Obama knows that energy demand increases every year and that green energy can never close the gap, Obama knows we will need more oil and that green energy only increases the burdon.

    Green energy further puts control of our lives in the hands of the government, we must beg our government to save us.
     
  8. WorldAHope
    Offline

    WorldAHope Ready to Rock n' Roll

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    415
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +45
    Fusion plants, not fission. Fission reactors are extremely expensive to build and maintain, with the security and disposals problem adding to the costs and difficulty.
    Same amount of $ put into developing alternative, will produce SOONER
    safer, decentralized (no mega corporations required to own and operate) sources of electricity.
    Hydro, wind, solar can provide a much larger % of our national needs.
    Fuel Cell and Electric vehicle technology for transportation.
    Better conservation efforts will also reduce our consumtion, by as much as 10%.

    Don't put all our eggs in one basket, use many players and pieces to reach a better energy profile.

    Tax incentives so homes and business can purchase solar panels.
    Germany and Denmark have been aggressive in advancing their alternative energy programs, and have made tremendous progress in reducing oil usage and making citizens less reliant on purchased electricity.
     
  9. krotchdog
    Offline

    krotchdog BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    Thanks Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +45
    If its the same amount of money to develop why does the EPRI report of Al Gore's say that its more expensive.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    More expensive than what? Being at the mercy of people that can take the price of fuel to $4 or more per gallon anytime they please? The oil companies sure have a lot of shills on this board.
     

Share This Page