Oregon green energy fraud

[mdn2000]

Its a sad state of affairs when the proponets of Green energy must lie and deceive the public.

Oregon gets less than 1% of their total energy from green sources yet they claim 25% is possible.

NO it is possible in two easy steps
1) reduce total energy expenditure to 4% of the current level.
2) Watch as people pack up and leave because they can't get any electricity.

But you COULD then supply 25% of the power needs, easy peasy.

Your right but before the people leave Jobs will leave, industry uses 90% of all power hence about 80% or more of all jobs will be destroyed first.

 

[Old Rocks]

Its a sad state of affairs when the proponets of Green energy must lie and deceive the public.

Oregon gets less than 1% of their total energy from green sources yet they claim 25% is possible.

NO it is possible in two easy steps
1) reduce total energy expenditure to 4% of the current level.
2) Watch as people pack up and leave because they can't get any electricity.

But you COULD then supply 25% of the power needs, easy peasy.

Your right but before the people leave Jobs will leave, industry uses 90% of all power hence about 80% or more of all jobs will be destroyed first.

2004 figures, energy use in the US.

Industrial 33%
Residential 21%
Transportation 28%
Commercial 17%

Energy in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JiggsCasey]

Yes I deny there is an imminent energy crisis, we will not see far-reaching energy shortages in our lifetime.

The balls in your court. I assumed the other questions implied if I held another position.

is that because there's plenty of light crude? if so, where is it?

is the IEA lying to the world when they say the era of cheap energy is officially over?

You speak specifically of light SWEET crude, that makes me curious, tell me about the Light sweet crude. I know it pretty much is found in the Middle East, I know there is not much Light Crude in the USA, I also understand its the most profitable oil to process hence we will not see development of Anwar or North American Heavy Crudes until Light crudes are depleted. I also understand that refineries designed for light crude do not process heave crude's.

Where are light sweet crude's, the Caspian sea. More than all of Arabia, land locked by Iran, land locked by Russia, good thing we are on such great standing with these countries, huh.

Is the IEA lying, possible, hopefully it depends on more than politics. I say politicians will enact laws and regulation that make fuel expensive.

Lying is the IEA, we have tremendous reserves of energy from oil to nuclear, IEA is simply a propagandist organization that will drive up prices profiting all corporations involved in Energy.

The IEA is not lying, but not because we are running out of energy as in oil, they are lying because they are part of the propaganda machine driving the price up. The IEA profits through telling lies.

Your follow up question I humored by responding to. Thus far you have contributed no facts nor reason, care to ask more go ahead but at this point your siding with such famous idiots such as Old Crock and his little sister Chrissy..

hi... been away a while.

dude, before i address your guessumptions, let's get something clear... i don't "side with" anyone here. I don't know anyone personally, not even intrawebz palz. ... I come here on rare occasion, i read a ridiculous post, I feel compelled to respond. ... that's about as far as it goes... I don't read every thread, and I don't participate in many. Just the ones that really stick out.

1) to your lame assertion that i have presented "no facts," please do a search of my few posts here and count the links i have provided on this topic, and tell me what you're referring to. What fact do you dispute as fact? ... No, I believe my posts here have saturated with facts.

2) You believe the solution to the world's crude oil problems lies at the Caspian Basin. Fine... crush me. Present just 3 links that declare total proven reserves in the Caspian basin. We'll divide them by 3, and arrive at a figure, and then discuss what that means. ... Proven, not estimated. Thanks.

a decent amount of natural gas, yes. ... but not much of the black gold. ... sorry.

Chevron found that out somewhere around 2002, when they revised their figures, and Cheney/Bush redeployed special forces out of that country to get ready for Iraq.

 

[JiggsCasey]

i guess you didn't wanna present those figures... i wouldn't either if I made the same ridiculous declaration.

 

[mdn2000]

I have been away cooling off for being a dumbass, as far as posting figures and debating them, I aint that interested, I got to jump through three hoops, provide three links, like the internet is a source.

You can take my work or not, you can do your own research, or simply look at the pipelines coming from the Caspian Sea.

You could even see that Iran blocks the sea and we have armies on both sides of Iran, we support the individual states of the Caucus, etc, etc.

Hell, look at the price of oil today.

Oil is every where, it even comes out of the ground on a golf course north of Los Angeles, it seeps out of the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico, oil is plentiful.

What is not plentiful is the materials to make fiberglass to make windmills.

 

[JiggsCasey]

I have been away cooling off for being a dumbass, as far as posting figures and debating them, I aint that interested, I got to jump through three hoops, provide three links, like the internet is a source.

This passage above smacks of someone arrogantly sure of something for no other reason than because he FEELS it is so. If the evidence existed, someone like you would be gleefully eager to provide sources backing up your claim and shut me up with facts. Instead, you punt to the "i can't be bothered" tactic, and reveal yourself to not have any idea what you're talking about.

You can take my work or not, you can do your own research, or simply look at the pipelines coming from the Caspian Sea.

1) you'll find that in merely giving a surface examination of your vast array of silliness on this forum, rest assured I won't be taking your word on anything. We'll just assume that reaction right now, k?

2) I have little doubt I've done FAR more research on this topic than have you, evidenced by my willingness to put my money where my mouth is, and your avoidance of a direct challenge and refusal to provide any figures, whatsoever, regarding Caspian proven reserves. I know the figures. YOU apparently do not.

3) So, pipelines from the region are somehow evidence of reserve totals that will supply industrial nations for generations? What a detective you would make.

You could even see that Iran blocks the sea and we have armies on both sides of Iran, we support the individual states of the Caucus, etc, etc.

Hell, look at the price of oil today.

What does ANY of this have to do with my challenge to you of providing proven reserve estimates from the Caspian Basin? I know the figures, do you? Why are you completely unable to come to the table with numbers so the forum knows where you get your bold "plenty of oil" proclamation?

Oil is every where, it even comes out of the ground on a golf course north of Los Angeles, it seeps out of the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico, oil is plentiful.

More vague, blanket, feel-good surface acceptance from another "drill baby drill" con who really doesn't know what he's ever talking about. Meanwhile, you "arent interested" in talking basic math.

Again, where is the abundance of proven reserves, and in what amount? If you wanna focus on the Caspian Basin, that is fine. Let's talk figures. Surely you can go to Chevron's site, or the USGS or somewhere and provide us all with total PROVEN crude reserves from that region. Heck, throw in natural gas totals too, if you like. I'm ready for your figures.

And then we'll divide by 84 million barrels per day (and growing) of global consumption, and you can explain to the forum how that figure amounts to "plenty of oil."

what is not plentiful is the materials to make fiberglass to make windmills.

Irrelevant. ... Try and stay focused on the topic at hand. YOU are the only one here making the bold assertion that there's "plenty of oil," while simultaneously suggesting the IEA, the DoE, the EIA, ASPO, the Joint Chiefs, France Total, Roscoe Bartlett, Matt Simmons, Dick Cheney and countless whistle-blowing petroleum geologist are somehow "in cahoots" and "lying" about global oil depletion. ... The burden is on YOU, then, to show us all where you allege this oil is that will sustain demand going forward.

Run from it all you like. I'll be right here asking you to put your money where your mouth is, con.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wind Energy is a waste of money except for possibly small scale individual turbines.

Talk all you want about the total of installed gigawatts. The simple truth is that wind turbines only produce on average one third of their rated capacity.

And if you want to see what a green energy program reliant on wind will do to your tax bill just take a look at Spain

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

The following are key points from the study:
1. As President Obama correctly remarked, Spain provides a reference for the
establishment of government aid to renewable energy. No other country has
given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity
through renewable sources. The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s “green
jobs” schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that
massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs. The
question that this paper answers is “at what price?”

2. Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find
that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s
experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence,
by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs
on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add
those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would
have created.

3. Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with
exactitude to claim that the U.S. would lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million
jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green
jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of
private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals the
tendency that the U.S. should expect such an outcome.

4. At minimum, therefore, the study’s evaluation of the Spanish model cited as
one for the U.S. to replicate in quick pursuit of “green jobs” serves a note of
caution, that the reality is far from what has typically been presented, and that
such schemes also offer considerable employment consequences and
implications for emerging from the economic crisis.

5. Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) “green jobs” policies it
appears that Spain likely has created a surprisingly low number of jobs, twothirds
of which came in construction, fabrication and installation, one quarter in
administrative positions, marketing and projects engineering, and just one out
of ten jobs has been created at the more permanent level of actual operation
and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity.
6. This came at great financial cost as well as cost in terms of jobs destroyed
elsewhere in the economy.

7. The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each
“green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.

8. The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the
destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs
destroyed for every “green job” created.

9. Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and
employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing,
beverage and tobacco industries.

10. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the
economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.
11. These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are
largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.

12. The total over-cost – the amount paid over the cost that would result from
buying the electricity generated by the renewable power plants at the market
price - that has been incurred from 2000 to 2008 (adjusting by 4% and
calculating its net present value [NPV] in 2008), amounts to 7,918.54 million
Euros (appx. $10 billion USD)

13. The total subsidy spent and committed (NPV adjusted by 4%) to these three
renewable sources amounts to 28,671 million euros ($36 billion USD).

14. The price of a comprehensive electricity rate (paid by the end consumer) in
Spain would have to be increased 31% to being able to repay the historic debt
generated by this rate deficit mainly produced by the subsidies to renewables,
according to Spain’s energy regulator.

15. Spanish citizens must therefore cope with either an increase of electricity rates
or increased taxes (and public deficit), as will the U.S. if it follows Spain’s model.
16. The high cost of electricity due to the green job policy tends to drive the
relatively most electricity-intensive companies and industries away, seeking
areas where costs are lower. The example of Acerinox is just such a case.

17. The study offers a caution against a certain form of green energy mandate.
Minimum guaranteed prices generate surpluses that are difficult to manage. In
Spain’s case, the minimum electricity prices for renewable-generated electricity,
far above market prices, wasted a vast amount of capital that could have been
otherwise economically allocated in other sectors. Arbitrary, state-established
price systems inherent in “green energy” schemes leave the subsidized
renewable industry hanging by a very weak thread and, it appears, doomed to
dramatic adjustments that will include massive unemployment, loss of capital,
dismantlement of productive facilities and perpetuation of inefficient ones.

18. These schemes create serious “bubble” potential, as Spain is now discovering.
The most paradigmatic bubble case can be found in the photovoltaic industry.
Even with subsidy schemes leaving the mean sale price of electricity generated
from solar photovoltaic power 7 times higher than the mean price of the pool,
solar failed even to reach 1% of Spain’s total electricity production in 2008.
19. The energy future has been jeopardized by the current state of wind or
photovoltaic technology (more expensive and less efficient than conventional
energy sources). These policies will leave Spain saddled with and further
artificially perpetuating obsolete fixed assets, far less productive than cuttingedge
technologies, the soaring rates for which soon-to-be obsolete assets the
government has committed to maintain at high levels during their lifetime.

20. The regulator should consider whether citizens and companies need expensive
and inefficient energy – a factor of production usable in virtually every human
project- or affordable energy to help overcome the economic crisis instead.

21. The Spanish system also jeopardizes conventional electricity facilities, which are
the first to deal with the electricity tariff deficit that the State owes them.

22. Renewable technologies remained the beneficiaries of new credit while others
began to struggle, though this was solely due to subsidies, mandates and related
programs. As soon as subsequent programmatic changes take effect which
became necessary due to “unsustainable” solar growth its credit will also cease.

23. This proves that the only way for the “renewables” sector - which was never
feasible by itself on the basis of consumer demand - to be “countercyclical” in
crisis periods is also via government subsidies. These schemes create a bubble,which is boosted as soon as investors find in “renewables” one of the few
profitable sectors while when fleeing other investments. Yet it is axiomatic, as
we are seeing now, that when crisis arises, the Government cannot afford this
growing subsidy cost either, and finally must penalize the artificial renewable
industries which then face collapse.

24. Renewables consume enormous taxpayer resources. In Spain, the average
annuity payable to renewables is equivalent to 4.35% of all VAT collected,
3.45% of the household income tax, or 5.6% of the corporate income tax for
2007.

Funny how the media isn't picking up on this. The only place I've found is

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/spanish-paper-obama-driving-off-green-energy-cliff-94572944.html#ixzz0oZHZNRAD

 

[Old Rocks]

Oregon is getting 8% of it's electrical energy from wind. Iowa gets 14% of its power from wind. Now, there are several companies putting in massive plants for solar. Some of the plants already produce solar for less than $1 a watt. One plant that is looking to locate in Oregon is planning the initial runs to be $0.50 a watt.

Not only is that article wrong, it is foolish.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Oregon is getting 8% of it's electrical energy from wind. Iowa gets 14% of its power from wind. Now, there are several companies putting in massive plants for solar. Some of the plants already produce solar for less than $1 a watt. One plant that is looking to locate in Oregon is planning the initial runs to be $0.50 a watt.

Not only is that article wrong, it is foolish.

So that's all you got?

"It's wrong"

Prove it. Show me another source that refutes the claims in the study.

 

[Old Rocks]

Spain Shoots for 67 Percent More Renewable Energy

Spain Shoots for 67 Percent More Renewable Energy by 2020
The Spanish government has plans to increase renewable energy production by 67 percent before 2020. This is especially ambitious given that Spain plans to continue cutting subsidies for wind and solar power, the two technologies providing the bulk of expected renewable gains over the next decade.



In a draft proposal on its way to the European Commission, Spain proposes that renewable generation capacity increase to 70 gigawatts by 2020, up from 42 gigawatts currently. Solar power will grow by nearly 300 percent from 4.7 GW to 13.4 GW. Wind power will nearly double to 38 GW from today’s 20.2 GW, including approximately 3 gigawatts from new offshore wind farms.

 

[Skull Pilot]

that article does not refute anything in the study I posted.