As the mid east is shifts alternative energy is critical

[Meister]

"Recycling programs are already in place in many areas," noted mercury clean-up expert Hogue. "Community leaders don't need to reinvent the wheel."

If recycling is not possible, used CFLs should be sealed inside a plastic bag and taken to a household hazardous waste disposal site, just as should batteries, oil-based paint, and motor oil, EPA recommends.

Web sites such as Earth 911 and Light Recycle can provide local disposal options.

OH.....then mercury IS a problem.

Yes just like old paint

Yet, we have replaced the "old paint" with NON TOXIC PAINT....no?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

OH.....then mercury IS a problem.

Yes just like old paint

Yet, we have replaced the "old paint" with NON TOXIC PAINT....no?

And we have replaced non-toxic bulbs with toxic bulbs. Ok... I get it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Fluorescent Lights' Mercury Poses Dim Threat

That is right wing propaganda.

The amounts in each bulb is tiny and presents no dangers

Incandescent bulbs have none. They're all I use and all I will ever use.

That's what I use. No mercury, dangerous chemicals. I've worked with mercury and it's dangerous, especially the vapors.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Fluorescent Lights' Mercury Poses Dim Threat

That is right wing propaganda.

The amounts in each bulb is tiny and presents no dangers

Incandescent bulbs have none. They're all I use and all I will ever use.

That's what I use. No mercury, dangerous chemicals. I've worked with mercury and it's dangerous, especially the vapors.

Yeah, gotta a love a bulb that when dropped you have to open all the windows and leave the house.

 

[Meister]

Yes just like old paint

Yet, we have replaced the "old paint" with NON TOXIC PAINT....no?

And we have replaced non-toxic bulbs with toxic bulbs. Ok... I get it.

You can bet your last dime that when there are no more non toxic bulbs, the environmentalists will come out and start on removing the fluorescent lighting.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

"Recycling programs are already in place in many areas," noted mercury clean-up expert Hogue. "Community leaders don't need to reinvent the wheel."

If recycling is not possible, used CFLs should be sealed inside a plastic bag and taken to a household hazardous waste disposal site, just as should batteries, oil-based paint, and motor oil, EPA recommends.

Web sites such as Earth 911 and Light Recycle can provide local disposal options.

So... in an effort to save the planet we're using bulbs that are now deemed hazardous waste?

That's smart.

You fuckers slay me.

Defies all logic and the new mercury bulbs are hazardous to the environment.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yet, we have replaced the "old paint" with NON TOXIC PAINT....no?

And we have replaced non-toxic bulbs with toxic bulbs. Ok... I get it.

You can bet your last dime that when there are no more non toxic bulbs, the environmentalists will come out and start on removing the fluorescent lighting.

Guess I should start buying candles....

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yet, we have replaced the "old paint" with NON TOXIC PAINT....no?

And we have replaced non-toxic bulbs with toxic bulbs. Ok... I get it.

You can bet your last dime that when there are no more non toxic bulbs, the environmentalists will come out and start on removing the fluorescent lighting.

As soon as the windmill farms were up and running the enviros were screaming and gnashing about a few birds flying into the blades....yes, the same windmills the enviros were screaming about to solve all of our woes.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And we have replaced non-toxic bulbs with toxic bulbs. Ok... I get it.

You can bet your last dime that when there are no more non toxic bulbs, the environmentalists will come out and start on removing the fluorescent lighting.

As soon as the windmill farms were up and running the enviros were screaming and gnashing about a few birds flying into the blades....yes, the same windmills the enviros were screaming about to solve all of our woes.

It's all about control.... it has nothing at all to do with the environment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I find it funny that so called environmentalists want to cover vast areas of wilderness with solar and wind farms.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I find it funny that so called environmentalists want to cover vast areas of wilderness with solar and wind farms.

Yeah. and never where they live too.. just like taxes... great.. for you.

 

[Truthmatters]

The CFL Light Bulb Scare MS Word

Much like when you spill a household toxic like furnature refinishing materials

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The CFL Light Bulb Scare MS Word

Much like when you spill a household toxic like furnature refinishing materials

Thanks, but I prefer to stick to incandescent. It's safe, no chemicals or dangerous mercury, plus, it doesn't harm the environment like mercury bulbs. Also, I take advantage of natural lighting.

 

[Londoner]

We're 38 years too late.

The 1973 oil shocks revealed that America's great postwar global leadership was about to enter a period of tragic dependence on foreign terrorist nations and domestic energy monopolies.

Trillions of dollars would be spent on elections, think tanks, and popular media to keep American voters from the realization that the military costs of mideast oil extraction would someday bankrupt the nation.

Which is why in the late 70s Jimmy Carter said we needed to build a moonshot around energy. He didn't want to get rid of petroleum, that is, he was a realist. He knew that if we could move just a small portion of our transportation and production system off oil -- through a combination of CAFE standards, conservation, alternative energy, and high speed rail -- we would be less exposed to wild price fluctuations: we would be less exposed to the world's most dangerous region.

Carter predicted that one day we would be slowly bled to death in a middle east quagmire. By re-thinking energy only slightly, we could avoid the most crushing downside of the $100 barrel. (and the consequent $5 bread loaf)

Reagan and the right framed Carter as a crazy Lefty who was exaggerating the dangers of the middle east and lying about the world's oil supply -- as if the Left was insane to suggest that China and India's oil demand, when combined with ours, would some day drive prices up and send the world into a never-ending series of recessions. Moreover, as long as these oil interests pumped money into the coffers of unscrupulous politicians, they could prevent the country from moving away from oil even an inch.

So, rather than making even minor changes to our energy consumption, Reagan told America to move forward with it's happy motoring culture. Meanwhile, in the back of the house the neocons helped him draw plans to stabilize the middle east (i.e., pure lunacy that would lead to US bankruptcy) -- and so we spent 30 years building bigger cars, bigger houses, and larger more energy-sucking suburbs, i.e., the greatest misallocation of resources in history, i.e.,

30 years of not learning the economic lesson Carter tried to teach us about the 1970s oil shocks: less oil dependence will some day save us.

Not so for Reagan. Rather than asking Americans to make short-term sacrifices and live within their means (in order to build a more viable energy future), Reagan -- the politician -- handed out more candy than FDR could ever dream, that is, he promised a future where the American appetite for high oil consumption would never have to bend to the planet's limitations (-worse: his brilliantly constructed religious/business coalition was helping him undermine the credibility of pesky science, thus leading to an atmosphere where talk about petroleum geology was hyped as the devil's work). And of course In the background there stood his largest donors -- the oil companies who benefited from higher oil consumption, and the weapons manufactures who benefited from middle eastern instability.

And then we have the Talk Radio bullhorn . . . keeping voters in a fog of disinformation, waging a multi-decade war against the Left's strategy to help America use less oil, i.e., lower demand = lower oil prices = lower prices for everything directly and indirectly dependent upon oil. Indeed, the Right strategically constructed the Left as a bunch of alarmist hippies seeking control over the economy for their own moral design.

The Republican Party, now fully captured by narrow oil interests, had succeeded in fooling an entire generation of conservative voters about energy. They told us not to worry about the Middle East or the supply of oil or the growing demand of 3rd world nations for oil -- all the things Carter warned about. And then… when their house of cards came tumbling down, leaving us stuck like the Russians in Afghan quicksand, they blamed the left for it's unwillingness to drill offshore, as if Jesus himself would magically turn the Gulf of Mexico into the Strait of Hormuz. Everybody knew this was just another lie -- another stall tactic to keep the market tied to a dead end. Even Jeb and George Bush knew it. Jeb Bush to Bush administration: No new drilling in Gulf off Florida AP 26jan01

America swallowed poison in 1980 and we are in the final stages of an enery-induced economic death that did not have to happen. We were lied to by people who were pursuing their own short-term economic interests.

 

[mdn2000]

nuclear is part of the solution.

Its NOT the whole solution.


It has a byproduct that is very dangerous.

Wouldnt you like to see an alternative developed that did NOT give any other countrys the ability to have this byproduct which can be turned into a bomb?

If the by product is so dangerous why has nobody been harmed, why is it not a problem in our environment?

 

[mdn2000]

We're 38 years too late.

The 1973 oil shocks revealed that America's great postwar global leadership was about to enter a period of tragic dependence on foreign terrorist nations and domestic energy monopolies.

Trillions of dollars would be spent on elections, think tanks, and popular media to keep American voters from the realization that the military costs of mideast oil extraction would someday bankrupt the nation.

Which is why in the late 70s Jimmy Carter said we needed to build a moonshot around energy. He didn't want to get rid of petroleum, that is, he was a realist. He knew that if we could move just a small portion of our transportation and production system off oil -- through a combination of CAFE standards, conservation, alternative energy, and high speed rail -- we would be less exposed to wild price fluctuations: we would be less exposed to the world's most dangerous region.

Carter predicted that one day we would be slowly bled to death in a middle east quagmire. By re-thinking energy only slightly, we could avoid the most crushing downside of the $100 barrel. (and the consequent $5 bread loaf)

Reagan and the right framed Carter as a crazy Lefty who was exaggerating the dangers of the middle east and lying about the world's oil supply -- as if the Left was insane to suggest that China and India's oil demand, when combined with ours, would some day drive prices up and send the world into a never-ending series of recessions. Moreover, as long as these oil interests pumped money into the coffers of unscrupulous politicians, they could prevent the country from moving away from oil even an inch.

So, rather than making even minor changes to our energy consumption, Reagan told America to move forward with it's happy motoring culture. Meanwhile, in the back of the house the neocons helped him draw plans to stabilize the middle east (i.e., pure lunacy that would lead to US bankruptcy) -- and so we spent 30 years building bigger cars, bigger houses, and larger more energy-sucking suburbs, i.e., the greatest misallocation of resources in history, i.e.,

30 years of not learning the economic lesson Carter tried to teach us about the 1970s oil shocks: less oil dependence will some day save us.

Not so for Reagan. Rather than asking Americans to make short-term sacrifices and live within their means (in order to build a more viable energy future), Reagan -- the politician -- handed out more candy than FDR could ever dream, that is, he promised a future where the American appetite for high oil consumption would never have to bend to the planet's limitations (-worse: his brilliantly constructed religious/business coalition was helping him undermine the credibility of pesky science, thus leading to an atmosphere where talk about petroleum geology was hyped as the devil's work). And of course In the background there stood his largest donors -- the oil companies who benefited from higher oil consumption, and the weapons manufactures who benefited from middle eastern instability.

And then we have the Talk Radio bullhorn . . . keeping voters in a fog of disinformation, waging a multi-decade war against the Left's strategy to help America use less oil, i.e., lower demand = lower oil prices = lower prices for everything directly and indirectly dependent upon oil. Indeed, the Right strategically constructed the Left as a bunch of alarmist hippies seeking control over the economy for their own moral design.

The Republican Party, now fully captured by narrow oil interests, had succeeded in fooling an entire generation of conservative voters about energy. They told us not to worry about the Middle East or the supply of oil or the growing demand of 3rd world nations for oil -- all the things Carter warned about. And then… when their house of cards came tumbling down, leaving us stuck like the Russians in Afghan quicksand, they blamed the left for it's unwillingness to drill offshore, as if Jesus himself would magically turn the Gulf of Mexico into the Strait of Hormuz. Everybody knew this was just another lie -- another stall tactic to keep the market tied to a dead end. Even Jeb and George Bush knew it. Jeb Bush to Bush administration: No new drilling in Gulf off Florida AP 26jan01

America swallowed poison in 1980 and we are in the final stages of an enery-induced economic death that did not have to happen. We were lied to by people who were pursuing their own short-term economic interests.

Now that the mid east appears to be shifting its political moorings Oil will become very expensive.

Alternatives become VERY important, good thing Obama got us started working on them already.


Crap I screwed up the title.

Oh well you know what I mean.

1. Our future is in ‘green energy’? “Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market.” After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com

Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas, 22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear, 3.6% biomass, 2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal, 0.31% wind, 0.08% solar.

2. If green energy is as good, cheap, and clean as supporters say, why haven’t market forces should make it an increasing part of the energy picture…? Politics: rather than the promotion of new sources of energy, the movement has been hijacked by those whose main motivation is the devolution of America, or to accomplish government ownership and control of our energy supply. Sometimes called the “Watermelon Effect,” it is made up of the ‘green’ pro-environment policies on the outside, hiding the red Marxist redistributive policies on the inside.
BTW, we imported just over a third of our oil in 1981, and now 70%.

Green math: solar panels to save 50% on your electric bills? Well, if the average electric bill is about $100/mos, the savings is $600/ year! But solar costs 30-40 K, so it takes about 58 years to start saving money. But…solar panels are projected to last 20-30 years. So, savings? Not so much.

Those are the figures for installed capacity, not energy delivered.

A more important figure would be what percentage of energy can alternative energy provide during an emergency, that figure is ZERO.

There is a guarantee that an emergency will arise on a cloudy, windless day, what then, as we increase our reliance on Alternative energy we also decrease our ability to produce power when needed.

An increase in Alternative Energy is a decrease in Economic and National Security.

This is the reality of increasing our use of alternative energy, we become a weaker nation on a national security level, alterternative energy is unreliable and intermitten, a danger to national security.

Economic Security, Alterternative energy is too expensive to supply industry with power, alternative energy is also incapable of supplying energy to industry on any scale. Alternative energy is too weak to even power the industry required to build Alternative energy.

Its a pretty dead issue other than educated the people. Of course those who continue argue do so for thier peculiar political, social, environmental values, not based on the reality of the failure of Alternative energy.

 

[Mr. H.]

Which is why in the late 70s Jimmy Carter said we needed to build a moonshot around energy. He didn't want to get rid of petroleum, that is, he was a realist.

Nonsense.

Carter had the opportunity to create a business and political climate that would have bolstered domestic production of oil and natural gas for decades to come. Instead, he basically declared war on the entire industry, enacting a "windfall profits tax" that was in fact neither a tax nor was it based on profits.

He got rid of petroleum all right- as a result of his actions (and inactions), domestic production fell, hundreds of companies went bankrupt, and tens of thousands lost jobs in an otherwise vibrant industry.

You call that being a realist? Bull fucking shit.

 

[Mr. H.]

Has anyone forgot about the ethanol in the gas idea on a major scale? Remember how it literally screwed up an entire sector of the futures market?

Interesting. Can you go into some more detail?

 

[Mr. H.]

...and now we have Jimmy Carter II, aka Obamahaha, who took it upon himself to declare (in the State of the Union Speech no less) that he will ask Congress to "take back the billions of taxpayers dollars that were given to the oil industry". He doesn't stop there... "I think they're doing fine on their own".

This is leadership?

Or is it just another Democrat being a "realist"?

 

[whitehall]

You gotta laugh at the cheap attempts by the left to justify Obama forcing Americans to be dependent on foreign oil. Are lefties living in a different dimension than mere humans? There is no substitute for oil. We can't run tractor trailers on nuclear energy. What are lefties thinking? Every commodity we depend on for our modern lives is dependent on oil for transportation.