Green Energy doesn't mean Oil Independence

[Evangelical]

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?

 

[editec]

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

 

[editec]

Why does the first step have to cost billions or trillions of tax payer dollars?

It doesn't have to.

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.

Yuip...in fact as I see what's happening what I see is that they are setting it up in such a way that energy prdocution will be, just as our current system is, highly centralized such that it will be controled (and milked for every penny they can get out of it) by a select group.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Yup!

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.

Yes!

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.

You're sounding more and more like a leftist all the time, amigo, did you KNOW that?

So if you want to get "serious" about energy and the future then roll up your sleeves and get fucking serious.

They're not serious.

Not, at least, as far as I can tell.

 

[RoadVirus]

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.

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.

 

[Mad Scientist]

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

In this case it's one step per generation right?

 

[krotchdog]

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?

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

Congress Expands Protected WildernessBy MATTHEW DALY, AP
posted: 23 DAYS 1 HOUR AGOcomments: 3filed under: Good NewsPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (March 25) - Congress has voted to set aside more than 2 million acres in nine states as protected wilderness - from California's Sierra Nevada mountains to the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.
The legislation, which opponents, mostly Republicans, called a "land grab" that would block energy development on vast swaths of federal land, is on its way to President Barack Obama for his likely signature.

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.

 

[WorldAHope]

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?

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.

 

[krotchdog]

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?

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.

If its the same amount of money to develop why does the EPRI report of Al Gore's say that its more expensive.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

On a whim? Yeah ... like how the low flow plumbing companies now charge twice as much for their plumbing? What about the fluorescent bulbs? Or how recycling companies can charge a fortune? Then these same companies can scare people into making laws to force us to pay for them? Yeah, kinda like that. I would rather have one evil giant to fight than three, five, or ten from the "green".

 

[Iriemon]

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?

Actually cars can use concentrated solar plants and wind turbines. They are called batteries.

 

[Iriemon]

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.

Source for your data and contention that oil companies made $630 billion in profit and pay 518 billion in taxes?

That would equate to a 82% tax rate, and I know the corporate tax rate hasn't been anything close to that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Source for your data and contention that oil companies made $630 billion in profit and pay 518 billion in taxes?

That would equate to a 82% tax rate, and I know the corporate tax rate hasn't been anything close to that.

God you are dumb.

630 billion was net profit, after the taxes were paid.

Let me use Liberal Logic here:

Premise. oil companies that make money on the sale of fuel are evil and disgusting

So if making money on the sale of fuel makes the oil companies evil and disgusting , and if the government made almost as much as the oil companies did on the sale of fuel, then the government is almost as evil and disgusting right?

but wait add all the state and federal gas taxes on to what the oil companies paid the government and the government made even more than the oil companies therefore the government is more evil and disgusting than the oil companies.

 

[Sinatra]

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.

Source for your data and contention that oil companies made $630 billion in profit and pay 518 billion in taxes?

That would equate to a 82% tax rate, and I know the corporate tax rate hasn't been anything close to that.

God you are dumb.

630 billion was net profit, after the taxes were paid.

Let me use Liberal Logic here:

Premise. oil companies that make money on the sale of fuel are evil and disgusting

So if making money on the sale of fuel makes the oil companies evil and disgusting , and if the government made almost as much as the oil companies did on the sale of fuel, then the government is almost as evil and disgusting right?

but wait add all the state and federal gas taxes on to what the oil companies paid the government and the government made even more than the oil companies therefore the government is more evil and disgusting than the oil companies.

Ah - you have hit upon one of the critical flaws of the Go-Green Industrial Machine...take out the significant tax revenues created by the oil and gas industry - or even reduce those revenues by say, 20%.

Local, county, and state governments would face such a revenue deficit as to make the day-to-day operations of those governments impossible. The only alternative? To significantly raise all other taxes to remedy the shortfall.

Perhaps enough people are ok with that - but I doubt it.

 

[krotchdog]

Green Energy gets a tax credit of 1.8 cent per kilowatt, the same price it costs a nuclear plant or coal plant to produce a kilowatt.

Oil companies suffer tons of regulations, over 50 different blends of gas, an oil supply controled by governments, endless lawsuits brought on by greenee meanees.

Price at the pump went up simply due to the governments interference, where do you think AIG put all that money they had, where do you think the bank was investing, in the worlds biggest commodity, ever scratch your head and wonder who lost money when the price per barrel went from 140$ to 50$ over night. More oil was traded at 140$, that is more bought, Bush himself said we have a surplus of oil 6 times higher than expected, so the government pumps easy money into the economy, it changes hands a bunch of times, its invested in the worlds largest commodity, the price falls, so how much money does the guy lose who paid 140$ and he can only sell it for 40$. Are we bailing out oil investors, what are the banks investments in oil and how much did they lose, why did Obama say we will not investigate the financial crisis. How can you solve a problem if there is no investigation telling us what happened.

This is nothing more than the biggest cover up in history and Obama is out there distracting us from it with his world apology tour.

 

[Iriemon]

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.

Source for your data and contention that oil companies made $630 billion in profit and pay 518 billion in taxes?

That would equate to a 82% tax rate, and I know the corporate tax rate hasn't been anything close to that.

God you are dumb.

630 billion was net profit, after the taxes were paid.

"Source" in my sentence above means a citation to a source that supports that claim, not blather from someone else. But since you have stepped up as the self proclaimed expert, you can answer this:

If $630B was profit after taxes, the net profit before taxes was $1,148B. A tax of $518B on $1,148B is 45%, more than the maximum corporate rate. So what portion was paid for the corporate tax on profit, and what portion was paid as an excise pre-profit tax at the pump.

Let me use Liberal Logic here:

Premise. oil companies that make money on the sale of fuel are evil and disgusting

Faulty premise. But the fact that Exxon was making $10B a quarter when gas prices were sky high and the stations price their gas about the same suggests price collusion is occuring.

So if making money on the sale of fuel makes the oil companies evil and disgusting , and if the government made almost as much as the oil companies did on the sale of fuel, then the government is almost as evil and disgusting right?

but wait add all the state and federal gas taxes on to what the oil companies paid the government and the government made even more than the oil companies therefore the government is more evil and disgusting than the oil companies.

See false premise above.

 

[Iriemon]

Green Energy gets a tax credit of 1.8 cent per kilowatt, the same price it costs a nuclear plant or coal plant to produce a kilowatt.

Oil companies suffer tons of regulations, over 50 different blends of gas, an oil supply controled by governments, endless lawsuits brought on by greenee meanees.

Price at the pump went up simply due to the governments interference, where do you think AIG put all that money they had, where do you think the bank was investing, in the worlds biggest commodity, ever scratch your head and wonder who lost money when the price per barrel went from 140$ to 50$ over night. More oil was traded at 140$, that is more bought, Bush himself said we have a surplus of oil 6 times higher than expected, so the government pumps easy money into the economy, it changes hands a bunch of times, its invested in the worlds largest commodity, the price falls, so how much money does the guy lose who paid 140$ and he can only sell it for 40$. Are we bailing out oil investors, what are the banks investments in oil and how much did they lose, why did Obama say we will not investigate the financial crisis. How can you solve a problem if there is no investigation telling us what happened.

This is nothing more than the biggest cover up in history and Obama is out there distracting us from it with his world apology tour.

Is that the Rush or Mark version of the economy these days?

 

[KittenKoder]

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?

Actually cars can use concentrated solar plants and wind turbines. They are called batteries.

All the moving parts need oil, and vegetable oil won't work, they tried that in labs already. Also plastics need oil.

 

[Iriemon]

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?

Actually cars can use concentrated solar plants and wind turbines. They are called batteries.

All the moving parts need oil, and vegetable oil won't work, they tried that in labs already. Also plastics need oil.

Miniscule compared to running a gas combustion engine.