something to ponder

Discussion in 'Energy' started by Wolfmann, Aug 31, 2012.

  1. Wolfmann
    Offline

    Wolfmann Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    44
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    East Waboo
    Ratings:
    +10
    The argument against going green has been it’s too expensive and costs jobs. At the beginning of any industrial invention the expenses have always been high. For example; the first TV’s, the first VCR’s, the first commercial airplanes and the list is endless. Those businesses that created and invested in these things have made millions (Bill Gates). Whenever a new industry comes out it creates jobs. It is true that in one sector jobs might be lost for a time but more jobs are created than lost.
    It does not matter one bit whether you believe in global warming, pollution or not. But if you believe in more businesses, increased jobs and lower bills, then pay attention. If you thought being green was for leftist tree huggers, here’s short list of groups who support going green.
    • D.O.D. (that’s right) and a former head of the CIA
    • Exxon and Shell Oil Corporation
    • The City of Chicago and New York Developers
    • The Evangelical Environmental Alliance Bank of America
    • People many who believe global warming doesn’t exist
    Not exactly your average group of leftist extremist tree huggers!
    DOD and a former head of the CIA
    – After Desert Storm members of Middle Eastern operational commands in various forward locations (Green Hawks) came to the conclusion that our dependence on oil had some major downsides and began initiating operations in some locations to try and solve some of those problems.
    Problem: Transporting and using traditional fuels was inefficient (up to 30% was wasted or never got to its destination) and costly in terms of money and American lives. According to Green Hawk, terrorist prefer attacking convoys which carry fuel supplies. When the fuel arrives it is used to power huge cooling units for barracks which are massively ineffective leaving troops less than combat ready. By going green the military found they can carry their power supplies with them (wind and solar) and by refitting the soldier’s quarters can make it more comfortable and energy efficient. This has reduced the energy costs where used by over 2/3. If the leaders in the Pentagon ever wake up and use these technologies everywhere the savings would be enormous and they would be able to operate on a smaller budget which would means lower taxes.
    Problem: As fossil fuels become more scarce and more people are displaced by rising oceans, the world will go to war over fossil fuels and land. These means more wars overseas and more dead Americans. Green Hawk believes that reducing our dependence on oil and using green technology will enable us to avoid oversea wars and have fewer dead.
    Shell and Exxon Oil Companies
    Why would two oil company CEO’s support putting themselves out of business? Simple
    • They have realized based on information from their scientists that the world’s supply of oil is running out and they are driving to extinction in a model T. So, they diversify and get into existing technologies that have a proven track record, are cheaper to create and are more long lasting. Once they do that they will be driving a Bentley again.
    • Profit margin. They know that China, Japan and Germany will have cornered the market in Renewable energy sources and manufacture by 2020 and they want their share. So what is standing in their way.
    1. Those including the powers that be who are living in the past and use their lobby power to prevent state and federal legislatures from passing laws and regulations that favor renewable energy use and development.
    2. The reluctance of some citizens to accept new ideas and use their votes to prove it.
    • Are these men interested in global warming or renewable energy. No they are interested n the bottom line, profit margin and their jobs.
    City of Chicago, Bank of America and a New York Developer.
    All three of these are actively involved in basically the same enterprise. Saving and making money. It’s the way they are doing it.
    In Chicago, the city is encouraging building owners where feasible to either plant grasses on their roofs or paint their roofs white. They are also encouraging them to put in REAL reflective glass. They discovered that by retrofitting building and painting roofs white or putting grasses on them they reduce energy demands by about 1/3. Chicago estimates that if every building that could did it the savings to businesses would be 150 million per year total. This would mean tenants pay less and the owners make more.
    In New York a developer retrofitted the Empire State Building. Within less than a year his energy costs have dropped by 40%. Bank of America has also recently retrofitted their headquarters building and plans on going green with any new banks constructed.
    Ordinary Citizens
    • A man in Roscoe Texas decided to help during a stretch of bad luck in town. He turned to wind driven turbines and gradually built a cooperative where anyone who allowed him to put one on their property would share in the profits. Eventually each cooperative member was earning up to $15,000 per turbine per year. He now owns the largest wind farm in the country. Those turbines are providing 250,000 homes with power. The turbines are manufactured at an abandoned steel mill in New England by former steel workers.
    • A man in Alaska who doesn’t think global warming is caused by man wanted to help his neighbors so he started providing them with geothermal energy from hot springs on his property. When he began most people were paying 30 cents per kilowatt hour by the local utility now they are being charged 5 cents by him and soon they will be charged a penny.
    • A engineer for a commercial airline manufacturing company Seattle Washington doesn’t believe global warming exists is trying to build the world’s most fuel efficient engine. Why because lower fuel costs means more planes built and that means his company makes money.


    Evangelical Environmental Alliance
    During Clinton’s second term some evangelical ministers began discussing the findings of theological researchers who had discovered errors in the interpretation of parts of the Old Testament. These researches had discovered that through the many translations of the Bible several words and phrases had been misinterpreted. The most important of these was in Genesis 1:28 where it says in part “…fill the earth and subdue it.” Apparently the English word “subdue” (which in Webster means to bring into subjection, to vanquish or conquer) was misinterpreted. According to these researchers the real meaning was closer to stewardship or to oversee it. These Evangelical ministers came to the realization that:
    • God created the earth
    • God blessed all things on it
    • Why would God create the earth then tell man to vanquish it.
    • The earth is God’s creation and man has no right to destroy it.
    According to the Department of Energy the world uses about 16 terawatts (sixteen trillion watts) of energy every year. Four of those are in the USA.
    • Every day the sun throws 86,000 terawatts on the earth’s surface
    • Winds produces 860 terawatts every day.
    • Geothermal Energy produces 32 terawatts every year.
    The DOE says that maximizing efforts to use just wind energy would result in the production of more energy than we would need.
    Of all the energy technologies out there the ones that are most labor intensive are the three we use most today.
    Coal – It has to be mined, loaded on freight cars, transported to plants where its scrubbed and sorted. Then burned and emissions go through scrubbers. Each step costs money
    Oil - The oil has to be found, then drilled for, then pumped out , then loaded onto transport devices (trains, boats, tanker trucks) and transported to refineries where it is put through cracking towers to make various products including diesel and gasoline. These products have additives and other chemicals added to them depending on their use. Then they are transported to the delivery point. The emissions from cracking towers may go through some type of purification system. This all costs money.
    Nuclear Power –designing a “safe” plant, getting it approved, continue through a building process with delays, getting it permitted to operate and then operating it safely, protecting the facility, cleaning the discharge vents, replacing radioactive water, containerizing the waste materials, transporting them safely, depositing them safely and then guarding them until rapture. Each plant costs millions of dollars to build and more to maintain safely. Nuclear Energy does produce pollution by discharging heated water into their receptor water bodies which causes algae blooms which must be regularly cleaned up to prevent to discharge vents from becoming clogged. They also produce a solid waste which must be sent far away from people to be guarded forever.
    And who do you think pays for all this?
    With solar, wind and geothermal it is much simpler and comparatively much less labor intensive. So what? Money! If something takes less time and energy to process and deliver it will be cheaper for the consumer and if it is easier to install and operate it is cheaper for the producer. WIN WIN.
    ALGAE Algae can be made into diesel and jet fuel whereas all the other organics cannot. It is also the least labor intensive. A series of large ponds about 4-6 inches deep filled with screened runoff from sewage treatment plants can produce 5000 gallons of fuel per year. Multiply this by 50 states and multiple ponds and you get the point. Algae diesel and jet fuel mean cheaper fuel, more savings, cheaper products and services which means money and jobs.
    Competition. China, Japan and Germany are cornering the renewable energy market and if they succeed we are SOL if we don’t start working on getting our fair share of the market. If we get going we can be energy independent and at least catch up by 2020. First we have to do two things.
    1. Get the dead heads in Washington and the states to allow the sale of excess energy to utilities and other facilities by private individuals.
    2. Tax industrial Carbon emissions! As long as companies have no vested interested in their emissions they cause they will not stop. Once they have a vested interest they will use their energy more wisely and allow renewable energy to become a larger part of the pie.
    3. Another good idea would be to get the DOD to jump start this whole thing like the folks at Green Hawk have done.
    JOBS - The new industries spreading across America will create millions of new jobs with some going to the poorest parts of the country. This will create more revenue, decrease the deficit and lower welfare roles.
    CARS - Cheaper and more efficient fuels mean more savings at the pump more savings in production and cars that can go further on less fuel.
    “It is no longer a question of what does it cost to go green but what will it cost not to”. President and CEO of Bank America
    So if you are opposed to;
    • Creating new business and millions of jobs in the USA
    • Decreasing energy costs, utility costs and costs at the pump
    • Saving American Lives and Preserving National Security
    • Reducing dependence on oil countries
    • Increasing energy efficiency
    • Being Patriotic
    • Complying with God’s plan
    • Saving money and lowering the deficit
    Then by all means continue to oppose renewable energy. If not then maybe you should reconsider your opposition.
    Green = Business= jobs = money for everyone!!!
     
  2. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    29,997
    Thanks Received:
    4,651
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,331
    You realize that rolling all together in one bag -- POLLUTION, GLOBAL WARMING, RECYCLING and "ALTERNATIVES" -- is bound to please most people -- some of the time..

    For instance I ardently support Recycling and reducing REAL pollution but oppose MOST of the "alternatives" and I'm very skeptical of CO2 being the primary cause of GW..

    So what you got here is equivalent to a statement that "Desserts are Good".. Or "Children are a Blessing". Which platitude do you value most?
     
  3. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,104
    Thanks Received:
    9,264
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,387
    "Going green" can never ever reach the economies of scale that hydrocarbons provide.
     
  4. Wolfmann
    Offline

    Wolfmann Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    44
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    East Waboo
    Ratings:
    +10
    As I said in the piece. read the DOE report on alternative energy and you will see your error. If you cannot support what you say with valid, objective data then it is just an opinion which you are entitled to but thats all it is.

    wolfman 24
     
  5. Wolfmann
    Offline

    Wolfmann Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    44
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    East Waboo
    Ratings:
    +10
    As I said in the piece. read the DOE report on alternative energy and you will see your error. If you cannot support what you say with valid, objective data then it is just an opinion which you are entitled to but thats all it is.

    Also some of the CEO of major oil companies (Shell, Exxon, BP, Standard Oil, Philipps and others including the DOD disagree with you.
    wolfman 24
     
  6. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    29,997
    Thanks Received:
    4,651
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,331
    I've been following "Alternate Energy" for 20 years as scientist/engineer. There ARE NO Alternatives -- only Supplements on that list. MOST of the list consists of very bad ideas with severe enviro consequences.

    I seriously doubt there's anything the DOE has to offer to change that reality.

    You like Geothermal MINING? You like BIOMASS conversion? You think Wind is neat? How do you rate Hydro environmentally? Let's cut the crap and get real... Just like the Europeans are currently doing whilst they seriously cut their "alternative" losses...
     
  7. IGetItAlready
    Offline

    IGetItAlready BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,264
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +153
    The ONE argument that means anything to my opposing "going green" is the fact that "going green" is synonymous with EVEN MORE federal interference in day to day life in America.

    A federal healthcare take over mandating Americans to purchase a product that Obama has stated he hopes will soon be offered ONLY by the federal government, carbon credits, drone surveillance of private farms and ranches, mandates on high dollar light bulbs that are only so "high dollar" here because we're being forced to pay for the R&D that went into creating them despite those expenses already having been paid in full in Asian markets and all the rest flies in the face of what America has always stood for.

    Lefties need to get over themselves and admit that for the past 236 years, America's unprecedented level of freedom has led to far more intelligent individual decisions than stupid ones.
    You don't want to make America NEED federal assistance and guidance with everything despite what you might think you want.
    Number one, you can't afford the implementation and number two you'll not like the resulting state of this so far greatest of nations.

    And while you're driving down the quality of life in America and snuffing out one of the very few bastions of personal freedom on earth, many other industrialized nations are too busy modeling themselves after America's centuries old success to get on board. Of course that inconvenience is easily remedied with more global mandates and more infringements on personal freedom and the beat goes on...
     
  8. waltky
    Online

    waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Messages:
    20,775
    Thanks Received:
    1,788
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Okolona, KY
    Ratings:
    +3,858
    Plastic could be the wave of the future in energy...
    :clap2:
    Plastic Could Fuel US Move Away from Foreign Oil
    October 30, 2012 — The next big thing in fuel could come from repurposed plastic. However, only seven percent of plastic waste in the United States is recycled each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
     
  9. 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
    Sure it could.

    There's plenty of potential energy to be captured from wind, solar, geothermal and tidal sources.

    FAR FAR FAR more energy is available from those sources that all the ergs in all the reserves of all the hydrocarbons on earth, actually.

    The question is: Are we willing to make the investments in those sources that will be needed to capture that energy?


    And I suspect the answer to that is:NO, not ong as the OILICRACY has so much influence over our government.
     
  10. RGR
    Offline

    RGR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,339
    Thanks Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +133
    "Read the DOE report" is no more providing valid objective data then those who certainly may read it, and draw different conclusions than you apparently have.
     

Share This Page