What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Oregon green energy fraud

mdn2000

Rookie
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
280
Points
0
Location
conservative hell california
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.

Oregon's governent lies and hides the true costs of green energy taxing the people more and demanding more tax money from the rest of the United States.

From the "Institute for Energy Research"

Institute for Energy Research Blog Archive BUSTED: Oregon “Green Energy” Backers Accused of Cooking the Books, Deliberately Hiding Huge Taxpayer Costs

The Oregonian: “State officials deliberately underestimated the cost … to lure green energy companies to Oregon with big taxpayer subsidies, resulting in a program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told…”

Washington, DC – According to a recent Oregonian investigative report, state government officials in Oregon intentionally misled the legislature by withholding critical costs estimates of an extremely expensive ‘green’ energy subsidy program, known as the Business Energy Tax Credit, which would ultimately cost taxpayers millions more than the disclosed amount.

The Oregonian’s Harry Esteve reports this:

According to documents obtained under Oregon’s public records law, agency officials estimated in a Nov. 16, 2006, spreadsheet that expanding the [green energy] tax credits would cost taxpayers an additional $13 million in 2007-09. But after a series of scratch-outs and scribbled notes, a new spreadsheet pared the cost to $1.8 million. And when energy officials handed their final estimate to the Legislature in February 2007, they pegged the added cost at just $1.2 million for the first two years and $4.1 million for 2009-11.


The higher estimates were never shown to lawmakers. Current and former energy staffers acknowledged a clear attempt to minimize the cost of the subsidies.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the non-partisan market-based Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued the following statement:

“Green jobs and green energy are simply not feasible without massive government subsidies, mandates and sometimes – as it appears in the case of Oregon – outright deception and dishonest acts. What was uncovered this weekend in Oregon is only the tip of the iceberg. Many rent seeking, corporate-welfare searching ‘green energy’ businesses seem more concerned with securing taxpayer-funded government handouts than producing jobs, dividends, growth, and reliable energy.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,434
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
3.5% by 2007, much more now, nearly 1 giga-watt online at present, much more coming as the South Eastern Oregon projects come on line. Those particular projects are also in an area rich in geo-thermal potential. Plus that area has enough sunlight to make solar thermal economical there.

http://www.awea.org/AWEA_Annual_Rankings_Report.pdf

As for subsidies, cut the subsidies to fossil fuel plants, and see how many get built. Not only that, make that industry pay for the real damage it does to the environment, and they will be bankrupt tomorrow.

Cut the subsidies for nuclear, and there will be no more nuclear plants built.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,434
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
By the way, why would I trust the word of an "Institute" that has as it's director, the former director of Enron's Public Relation Policy?

Institute for Energy Research - SourceWatch

The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues which happen to suit the energy industry: climate change denial, claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless, and the deregulation of utilities.

It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.
 
OP
M

mdn2000

Rookie
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
280
Points
0
Location
conservative hell california
See the arguement in favor of wind power, ignore the reality and attack the critics.

The government of Oregon is intentionally deceiving the public and Old Crock's arguement is "look he worked for Enron". Lots of people work for lots of companies involved in scandals, does that make everybody who is an employee a fraud, not hardly, and this is not a valid arguement proving the government of Oregon is not lieing.

Old Crock cannot address the massive subsidies a wind farm needs, instead Old Crock's arguement is "they have subsidies so I should have susidies".

Susidies are everywhere and should go, that said the subsidies wind farms receive surpass all subsidies of all other energy sources combined yet wind provides less than 1% of the energy they claim they can provide.

As if a subsidy will allow wind farms overcome the physical limitations of capaturing energy form the wind.
 
OP
M

mdn2000

Rookie
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
280
Points
0
Location
conservative hell california
NoFreeWind - The Heavy Price We Pay for Windpower: Wind Turbine Output Graphs – Part I

Here is another very sad example. Bonneville Power in Oregon. Bonneville states they have 2680MW of installed wind. Likely most of these turbines are the older models rated at 1.5MW, with a few more rated 2.0MW and the very newest turbines rated at 3.0MW. With an average of 1.75MW the 2680 MW equals a guess of 1500 turbines. How much do they cost? Go to the cost section of WindIndustry.org web site and they write “The costs for a commercial scale wind turbine in 2007 ranged from $1.2 million to $2.6 million, per MW of nameplate capacity installed.” If we used $2.0 million per MW as middle ground then the total of the Bonnevile turbines are $3 BILLION DOLLARS. The chart below show the latest wind output and energy production in MW’s. As you can see on January 1st there was a spike of wind and the average of Jan 1st to Jan 2nd would be about 30% of the possible 2680 MW’s. Now, look at the rest of the week, on December 31st and the three days from Jan 3rd to Jan 6th there was almost NO OUTPUT from these 3 BILLIONS DOLLARS WORTH OF JUNK. Complete JUNK. Not only that, the turbines suck energy from the system even when they are not running! They often use the grid power to turn in low wind because if they are still for too long the blades could deform. It is so simple to see, wind power can not replace ANY CONVENTIONAL POWER PLANT, EVER. Now some would say, we should put them where they work better, the sad fact, is that there is no place(or very very few) where their output is more than 40% of their possible capacity. This is how it is, everywhere. Yet, our energy experts in Washington do not have a clue, or else there are simply deceiving us.

The only thing keeping wind power blowing is massive amounts of tax money.

Pay more in taxes to pay for wind.

Pay more for electricity to pay for wind.

Pay more for water to pay for wind.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,434
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
42% of all installed capacity in the US in 2009 was wind. Installed by private contractors using American workers. Many of the turbines were GE, built here in America. And the turbines are maintenanced by Americans, and most are on American farmers land, and these farmers recieve a good yearly income from those turbines.

Win-Win for everybody, except those that hate the thought of Americans making money.
 
OP
M

mdn2000

Rookie
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
280
Points
0
Location
conservative hell california
42% of all installed capacity in the US in 2009 was wind. Installed by private contractors using American workers. Many of the turbines were GE, built here in America. And the turbines are maintenanced by Americans, and most are on American farmers land, and these farmers recieve a good yearly income from those turbines.

Win-Win for everybody, except those that hate the thought of Americans making money.

42% of all installed capacity in the US in 2009 was wind]

What, huh, your comment makes no sense

Installed by private contractors using American workers

Old Crock you left out that the Wind Turbines are completely subsidized with my tax dollars, with my children's tax dollars, with all american's tax dollars, this generation, and the next generation who will be paying for the wind farms to the tune of 100's of billions of dollars.

Many of the turbines were GE, built here in America.

Many were not

Top 10 Wind Turbine Manufacturers by Megawatts Installed Worldwide in 2009 | Renewable Energy Sources - Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind Plus Much More

1.Vestas (Denmark) 35,000 MW
2.Enercon (Germany) 19,000 MW
3.Gamesa (Spain) 16,000 MW
4.GE Energy (Germany / United States) 15,000 MW
5.Siemens (Denmark / Germany) 8,800 MW
6.Suzlon (India) 6,000MW
7.Nordex (Germany) 5,400 MW
8.Acciona (Spain) 4,300 MW
9.REpower (Germany) 3,000 MW
10.Goldwind (China) 2,889 MW

As we can see GE is a minor player if you take into account the percentage of the market all the other players hold. In parenthesis is the country in which the companies manufacture wind turbines, in the case of GE most manufacturing is in Germany.

Manufacturing is putting it all together, materials are imported from other countries, as in the case of fiberglass most is manufactured in China and than exported to the countries where the final product is assembled. Fiberglass is very polluting hence most manufacturers prefer a country like China where pollution laws can be ignored. 4 million BTUs used to manufacture 1 ton of fiberglass, around 60 tons of fiberglass per windmill, mayber more, not less, thats 60 million btus for the fiberglass portion, how about the steel, another 50 tons, copper 20 tons, carbon fiber, titanium, chromoly, titanium, carbon steel, stainless steel, plastic, how much energy expended for a wind turbine that sits idle for 90% of its life.

General Electric Company - Money,Politics,Campaign Contributions,General Electric Company

General Electric Company - Political Campaign Contributions
(1999 to Present)

General Electric is one of Obama's largest campaign contributers.

And who Lobbys for who

GE hires Linda Daschle as a lobbyist | Washington Examiner

GE hires Linda Daschle as a lobbyist
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
06/22/09 4:29 PM EDT
General Electric, a top-20 source of funds for Obama in 2008, and owner of the Obama-friendly MSNBC, already has strong ties to Democrats, but the company has bolstered that relationship, according to recently filed federal lobbying registrations.

GE's transportation business has hired as a lobbyist Linda Hall Daschle, wife of Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic Leader and Obama's first pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Mrs. Daschle will lobby on issues including Amtrak, high-speed rail, and freight rail, the lobbying form says. Obama has declared support for added federal funding for high-speed rail.

GE is also a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which lobbies for restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.

Wow, GE owns MSNBC, seems MSNBC is very freindly to Obama, seems I see global warming stories on MSNBC, seems GE advertises Wind Turbines on MSNBC.

Win-Win for everybody

Except for those who pay the taxes that subsidize wind farms or for people who pay for electricity and water.

SCE Rate Hike

July 2, 2008
SCE Seeks Approval to Increase All Retail Rates in 2009;
17.5% Rate Hike Proposed for Residential Customers




Utility cites rising costs and the need to step up infrastructure replacement

Along with the price of a gallon of gas and staples like bread and eggs, the cost of keeping the lights on is likely to increase as much as 17.5% in 2009 for residential customers of Southern California Edison Co. SCE has notified its customers, including the City of Duarte, that it has filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission to increase retail rates for all of its customers.


3.Significantly increased expenses to meet regulatory requirements in electricity generation and procurement for customers

Now we have an industry mandated by government regulation that is built with tax subsidies and raises electrical rates charged to the same people who paid taxes so that private corporations can profit.

California Ups Renewable Energy Mandate to 33% by 2020 : Red, Green, and Blue

Written by Timothy B. Hurst

Published on November 17th, 2008
13 CommentsPosted in Center, Climate Change, Energy, Leader, US Election, World
Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Executive Order to Raise California’s Renewable Energy Goals to 33% by 2020 and Clear Red Tape for Renewable Energy Projects

And here is how Old Crock addresses me

mds, why should anyone answer you? You have proven yourself to be a liar on this and many other subjects

Old Crock never responds, Old Crock has posted links to articles, I follow the links, and you know what, the material was not read by Old Crock, Old Crocks own source confirrms my point, not Old Crock.

One of the funniest is Old Crock stated that Old Crock worked in a steel smelter, Old Crock than said the smelter ran on electricity, I stated it needed fossil fuel as well, Old Crock posted a link that explained the smelting process, yes it used electricity but it also needed natural gas as the link clearly stated. Thanks Old Crock, that was rich, it was funny, I will have to dig that thread up and bump it to the top, it was really funny and shows that Old Crock either does not read Old Crocks source or does not understand his own source.

Dementia must be a bitch, on a serious note I have empathy towards Old Crock, its fun to tease when someone is such an asshole but we should acknowledge there is nothing funny about Old Crocks struggle with Dementia.
 
Last edited:

thomas78

Rookie
Joined
Mar 21, 2010
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Well I guess green energy solutions and alternative energy such as wind power and solar power has become a hot topic in the political arena. The more focus you have on it the more votes you get. It's only natural with the continously rising oil costs and environmental strains.
 
OP
M

mdn2000

Rookie
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
280
Points
0
Location
conservative hell california
Well I guess green energy solutions and alternative energy such as wind power and solar power has become a hot topic in the political arena. The more focus you have on it the more votes you get. It's only natural with the continously rising oil costs and environmental strains.

Wind Energy is a waste of energy and natural resourse as is Solar, I speak as in compared to Oil.

Read all of 100% Alternative energy and you will see how the arguement in favor of alternatives falls apart.
 

JiggsCasey

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
121
Points
78
Wind Energy is a waste of energy and natural resourse as is Solar, I speak as in compared to Oil.

Read all of 100% Alternative energy and you will see how the arguement in favor of alternatives falls apart.

There are limitations to wind and solar. Sure.

But mankind had better get used to living with a little less. ... The black gold can no longer meet demand, and that disparity will grow wider with each passing year. This is geological fact, not hearsay. ... Wanna talk about debt to our children? Ain't seen nothing yet.

If wind and solar can supplement that disparity a bit and get us further off the grid, so be it.

Conversely, dealing with our energy crisis by instead digging deeper for dirtier hydrocarbons will make us even more broke, and certainly more sick.
 
Last edited:
OP
M

mdn2000

Rookie
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
280
Points
0
Location
conservative hell california
Wind Energy is a waste of energy and natural resourse as is Solar, I speak as in compared to Oil.

Read all of 100% Alternative energy and you will see how the arguement in favor of alternatives falls apart.

There are limitations to wind and solar. Sure.

But mankind had better get used to living with a little less. ... The black gold can no longer meet demand, and that disparity will grow wider with each passing year. This is geological fact, not hearsay. ... Wanna talk about debt to our children? Ain't seen nothing yet.

If wind and solar can supplement that disparity a bit and get us further off the grid, so be it.

Conversely, dealing with our energy crisis by instead digging deeper for dirtier hydrocarbons will make us even more broke, and certainly more sick.


Yet if you are advocating for wind or solar you are advocating for drilling and producing more fossil fuel, you cannot make a windmill or a solar panel without fossil fuels, wind and solar use fossil fuels at an accelerated rate. Its all in the threads, you obviously have not read the threads, look at my profile, search my posts, read all in energy or environment and you will see I have provided anyone who wishes with all the information, links, links, facts and facts.

its all right here on this site, its all referenced, you dont even need to take my word for it, look it up yourself.

Look up the chemicals it takes to make fiberglass, look at the pollution created.

No oil, no windmill. its that simple, same goes for solar.

Its all been posted, not just by me but by others.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,656
Reaction score
7,434
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
So there are people equally as stupid as you are.

There are many gigawatts of electricity being produced by wind as we post. There will be many more gigawatts by this time next year.

Solar is already at less than $1 a watt for a manufacturing cost. There are several new technologies coming out of the lab that will create photovoltaic cells that have potentials of 40% efficiencies or better.
 

Toronado3800

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
7,608
Reaction score
559
Points
140
Yet if you are advocating for wind or solar you are advocating for drilling and producing more fossil fuel, you cannot make a windmill or a solar panel without fossil fuels, wind and solar use fossil fuels at an accelerated rate. Its all in the threads, you obviously have not read the threads, look at my profile, search my posts, read all in energy or environment and you will see I have provided anyone who wishes with all the information, links, links, facts and facts.

its all right here on this site, its all referenced, you dont even need to take my word for it, look it up yourself.

Look up the chemicals it takes to make fiberglass, look at the pollution created.

No oil, no windmill. its that simple, same goes for solar.

Its all been posted, not just by me but by others.

Heck, I can't brush my teeth w/o using some plastic so in a way I agree. We will need oil to make that plastic for the foreseeable future.

Alternative & renewable energy sources are not currently as economically viable as oil. Also they require a bit more thought, which humans hate. Buy an electric car, you have to think about plugging it in or else you're stuck in place for a very long time recharging. Run your car 99% out of gas and you fill up in 5 minutes at the pump.
 
OP
M

mdn2000

Rookie
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
280
Points
0
Location
conservative hell california
Yet if you are advocating for wind or solar you are advocating for drilling and producing more fossil fuel, you cannot make a windmill or a solar panel without fossil fuels, wind and solar use fossil fuels at an accelerated rate. Its all in the threads, you obviously have not read the threads, look at my profile, search my posts, read all in energy or environment and you will see I have provided anyone who wishes with all the information, links, links, facts and facts.

its all right here on this site, its all referenced, you dont even need to take my word for it, look it up yourself.

Look up the chemicals it takes to make fiberglass, look at the pollution created.

No oil, no windmill. its that simple, same goes for solar.

Its all been posted, not just by me but by others.

Heck, I can't brush my teeth w/o using some plastic so in a way I agree. We will need oil to make that plastic for the foreseeable future.

Alternative & renewable energy sources are not currently as economically viable as oil. Also they require a bit more thought, which humans hate. Buy an electric car, you have to think about plugging it in or else you're stuck in place for a very long time recharging. Run your car 99% out of gas and you fill up in 5 minutes at the pump.

You have not read the threads here, Oil is not needed for plastic, Oil is needed for petro-chemicals, demand exceeds supply, we have to develop and process oil at a faster rate to provide the chemicals used to make the fiberglass in order for big corporations like General Electric to build hundreds of thousands of electrical generators that are going to sit idle in a field for 90% of the generators life.

This is a good thing for traditional fossil fuel electrical power plants, all "Green Energy" sources require 100% fossil fuel back-up.

All this is in other threads so as the threads get buried we must constantly repeat ourselves in order to educate those who do not know.
 

JiggsCasey

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
121
Points
78
Yet if you are advocating for wind or solar you are advocating for drilling and producing more fossil fuel, you cannot make a windmill or a solar panel without fossil fuels, wind and solar use fossil fuels at an accelerated rate. Its all in the threads, you obviously have not read the threads, look at my profile, search my posts, read all in energy or environment and you will see I have provided anyone who wishes with all the information, links, links, facts and facts.

its all right here on this site, its all referenced, you dont even need to take my word for it, look it up yourself.

Look up the chemicals it takes to make fiberglass, look at the pollution created.

No oil, no windmill. its that simple, same goes for solar.

Its all been posted, not just by me but by others.

While I'm certainly not as risk of "taking your word for it," I'm well aware of both sides of the argument for and against wind. I don't need this site to educate me further on the matter.

You seem supremely confident and strident in your anti-renewable stance. Before I decide to engage you on this topic, might I ask a few basic questions, so I know what I'm dealing with?:

- do you deny that there's an imminent energy crisis? will we see a far-reaching energy shortage in our lifetimes?

if not...

- what is the solution, then, to the slow decline of light, clean, sweet crude all over the planet? i'm not looking for anything too elaborate, but what source would you prefer to lean on most heavily to mitigate this problem? coal? nuclear? shale? tar sands? ethanol?

- what degree of "conservation" is someone like you willing to sacrifice in your daily life? or, perhaps none at all?

thanks.
 
Last edited:
OP
M

mdn2000

Rookie
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
280
Points
0
Location
conservative hell california
Yet if you are advocating for wind or solar you are advocating for drilling and producing more fossil fuel, you cannot make a windmill or a solar panel without fossil fuels, wind and solar use fossil fuels at an accelerated rate. Its all in the threads, you obviously have not read the threads, look at my profile, search my posts, read all in energy or environment and you will see I have provided anyone who wishes with all the information, links, links, facts and facts.

its all right here on this site, its all referenced, you dont even need to take my word for it, look it up yourself.

Look up the chemicals it takes to make fiberglass, look at the pollution created.

No oil, no windmill. its that simple, same goes for solar.

Its all been posted, not just by me but by others.

While I'm certainly not as risk of "taking your word for it," I'm well aware of both sides of the argument for and against wind. I don't need this site to educate me further on the matter.

You seem supremely confident and strident in your anti-renewable stance. Before I decide to engage you on this topic, might I ask a few basic questions, so I know what I'm dealing with?:

- do you deny that there's an imminent energy crisis? will we see a far-reaching energy shortage in our lifetimes?

if not...

- what is the solution, then, to the slow decline of light, clean, sweet crude all over the planet? i'm not looking for anything too elaborate, but what source would you prefer to lean on most heavily to mitigate this problem? coal? nuclear? shale? tar sands? ethanol?

- what degree of "conservation" is someone like you willing to sacrifice in your daily life? or, perhaps none at all?

thanks.

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.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,662
Points
48
Location
Maine
Who to believe?

The guy with a vested interest in lying or the guy without any reason to lie?

Gee this is hard to figure out, isn't it?
 

Charles Stucker

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
226
Points
48
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.
 

JiggsCasey

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
121
Points
78
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?
 
OP
M

mdn2000

Rookie
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
3,766
Reaction score
280
Points
0
Location
conservative hell california
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..
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top