This topic is in the Breaking Political News discussion forum. (rss)

Obama's nightmare "Green Agenda" officially unvieled

<< 1 2 3 >>

reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 08:55 PM by ProfEmeritus

reply to post by Animal

Do you seriously believe this to be the case? It is my opinion that you are simply opposed to Obama and a Democratically defined and run government, which is absolutely your prerogative. However, I do not see much of this plan as poorly defined or short sighted in its scope.

I do not make any pretense of knowing your reasons, please do not make assumptions that you know what I believe. I BELIEVE that since these are the same people(not just OBAMA, but all of Congress, both democrats and republicans) that blew almost a trillion dollars of OUR tax money on a "bailout bill" that fixed NOTHING, that they should not be trusted with billions more of our tax dollars, on some nebulous plan, with no specifics.

You still didn't answer my question. If someone gave YOU that plan, with no specifics, would YOU invest YOUR money in it? Think long and hard over your answer, because like it or not, it is YOUR money and MINE. I ran a corporation, and I can tell you that I NEVER invested a penny in anything, unless I had thoroughly investigated every aspect of a proposal. This "plan" of theirs is nothing more than what we call in business a "one-page glossy". Knowing the way politicians work, this "plan" was put together to win votes, which it did, and it seems to have won over people that have no clue as to how this "plan" will succeed.

reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 09:17 PM by projectvxn

Here's the PDF of the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan:

www.whitehouse.gov...

And here's the website where, after passage, all the information on the spending bill and the tax cuts will be placed.

www.recovery.gov...

YouTube Link

[edit on 24-1-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 24-1-2009 by projectvxn]

reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 09:36 PM by antar

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Energy Plan Overview
Provide Short-term Relief to American Families

Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.
Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
Create Millions of New Green Jobs

Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.

This is not a new idea, Nor is it one that President Obama dreamed up over night, it is already well implemented and a proven science which will reduce greenhose emissions world wide and create jobs for millions of workers worldwide as countries begin to turn towards the projected future of the year 2050 when human waste and pollution will be a bad memory of the distant past.

en.wikipedia.org...

Main renewable energy technologies

Three energy sourcesThe majority of renewable energy technologies are powered by the sun. The Earth-Atmosphere system is in equilibrium such that heat radiation into space is equal to incoming solar radiation, the resulting level of energy within the Earth-Atmosphere system can roughly be described as the Earth's "climate." The hydrosphere (water) absorbs a major fraction of the incoming radiation. Most radiation is absorbed at low latitudes around the equator, but this energy is dissipated around the globe in the form of winds and ocean currents. Wave motion may play a role in the process of transferring mechanical energy between the atmosphere and the ocean through wind stress.[15] Solar energy is also responsible for the distribution of precipitation which is tapped by hydroelectric projects, and for the growth of plants used to create biofuels.

Renewable energy flows involve natural phenomena such as sunlight, wind, tides and geothermal heat, as the International Energy Agency explains:

"Renewable energy is derived from natural processes that are replenished constantly. In its various forms, it derives directly from the sun, or from heat generated deep within the earth. Included in the definition is electricity and heat generated from solar, wind, ocean, hydropower, biomass, geothermal resources, and biofuels and hydrogen derived from renewable resources."[16]

Each of these sources has unique characteristics which influence how and where they are used.

Wind power
Main article: Wind power

Vestas V80 wind turbinesAirflows can be used to run wind turbines. Modern wind turbines range from around 600 kW to 5 MW of rated power, although turbines with rated output of 1.5–3 MW have become the most common for commercial use; the power output of a turbine is a function of the cube of the wind speed, so as wind speed increases, power output increases dramatically.[17] Areas where winds are stronger and more constant, such as offshore and high altitude sites, are preferred locations for wind farms.

Since wind speed is not constant, a wind farm's annual energy production is never as much as the sum of the generator nameplate ratings multiplied by the total hours in a year. The ratio of actual productivity in a year to this theoretical maximum is called the capacity factor. Typical capacity factors are 20-40%, with values at the upper end of the range in particularly favourable sites.[18][19] For example, a 1 megawatt turbine with a capacity factor of 35% will not produce 8,760 megawatt-hours in a year, but only 0.35x24x365 = 3,066 MWh, averaging to 0.35 MW. Online data is available for some locations and the capacity factor can be calculated from the yearly output.[20][21]

Globally, the long-term technical potential of wind energy is believed to be five times total current global energy production, or 40 times current electricity demand. This could require large amounts of land to be used for wind turbines, particularly in areas of higher wind resources. Offshore resources experience mean wind speeds of ~90% greater than that of land, so offshore resources could contribute substantially more energy.[22] This number could also increase with higher altitude ground-based or airborne wind turbines.[23]

Wind power is renewable and produces no greenhouse gases during operation, such as carbon dioxide and methane.

Water power
Main article: Hydropower
Energy in water (in the form of kinetic energy, temperature differences or salinity gradients) can be harnessed and used. Since water is about 800 times denser than air,[24][25] even a slow flowing stream of water, or moderate sea swell, can yield considerable amounts of energy.

One of 3 PELAMIS P-750 Ocean Wave Power engines in the harbour of Peniche/ Portugal.There are many forms of water energy:

Hydroelectric energy is a term usually reserved for large-scale hydroelectric dams. Examples are the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington State and the Akosombo Dam in Ghana.
Micro hydro systems are hydroelectric power installations that typically produce up to 100 kW of power. They are often used in water rich areas as a Remote Area Power Supply (RAPS). There are many of these installations around the world, including several delivering around 50 kW in the Solomon Islands.
Damless hydro systems derive kinetic energy from rivers and oceans without using a dam.
Ocean energy describes all the technologies to harness energy from the ocean and the sea:
Marine current power. Similar to tidal stream power, uses the kinetic energy of marine currents
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) uses the temperature difference between the warmer surface of the ocean and the colder lower recesses. To this end, it employs a cyclic heat engine. OTEC has not been field-tested on a large scale.
Tidal power captures energy from the tides. Two different principles for generating energy from the tides are used at the moment:
Tidal motion in the vertical direction — Tides come in, raise water levels in a basin, and tides roll out. Around low tide, the water in the basin is discharged through a turbine, exploiting the stored potential energy.
Tidal motion in the horizontal direction — Or tidal stream power. Using tidal stream generators, like wind turbines but then in a tidal stream. Due to the high density of water, about eight-hundred times the density of air, tidal currents can have a lot of kinetic energy. Several commercial prototypes have been build, and more are in development.
Wave power uses the energy in waves. Wave power machines usually take the form of floating or neutrally buoyant structures which move relative to one another or to a fixed point. Wave power has now reached commercialization.
Saline gradient power, or osmotic power, is the energy retrieved from the difference in the salt concentration between seawater and river water. Reverse electrodialysis (PRO) is in the research and testing phase.
Deep lake water cooling, although not technically an energy generation method, can save a lot of energy in summer. It uses submerged pipes as a heat sink for climate control systems. Lake-bottom water is a year-round local constant of about 4 °C.

Solar energy use
Main article: Solar energy

Monocrystalline solar cellIn this context, "solar energy" refers to energy that is collected from sunlight. Solar energy can be applied in many ways, including to:

Generate electricity using photovoltaic solar cells.
Generate electricity using concentrated solar power.
Generate electricity by heating trapped air which rotates turbines in a Solar updraft tower.
Generate electricity in geosynchronous orbit using solar power satellites.
Generate hydrogen using photoelectrochemical cells.
Heat and cool air through use of solar chimneys.
Heat buildings, directly, through passive solar building design.
Heat foodstuffs, through solar ovens.
Heat water or air for domestic hot water and space heating needs using solar-thermal panels.
Solar air conditioning

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Sustainable development and global warming groups propose a 100% Renewable Energy Source Supply, without fossil fuels and nuclear power.[56] Scientists from the University of Kassel have been busy proving that Germany can power itself entirely by renewable energy.

This was the number one reason I did not want to vote for McCain, he proposed to put over 280 new nuclear reactors in the US by 2015
en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 09:37 PM by ProfEmeritus

reply to post by projectvxn

And here's the website where, after passage, all the information on the spending bill and the tax cuts will be placed.

This does not bother you? Check back AFTER the bill has been passed.
My word, we're supposed to just take their word for it, that WHATEVER they pass, is ok. Don't tell us what you passed UNTIL AFTER it has been passed. Until then, we'll just give you generalities, but don't worry- we're from the government, and we're here to help you, the check is in the mail(and the third one I won't repeat).Wow, that is pure arrogance!
My Lord, we just don't seem to learn, do we? Can anyone spell BAILOUT BILL?
(Hint- Hurry up and pass it, or there will be Marshall Law. Don't worry about what it says, just pass it. It'll work.)
I ask - does anyone else see a problem with this approach?

AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.

reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 09:42 PM by projectvxn

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Draft bills can be found at www.senate.gov...

And Bush is not in Office. Likely things will be done differently. Lots of bills get passed without ANY public scrutiny as to what it means. At least this way anyone who is interested can see the bill.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by projectvxn]

reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 09:53 PM by ProfEmeritus

reply to post by projectvxn

And Bush is not in Office. Likely things will be done differently. Lots of bills get passed without ANY public scrutiny as to what it means. At least this way anyone who is interested can see the bill.

Bills have ALWAYS been at that link. In fact, the Bailout bill was there also. Tell me what good that did. Bush, Obama, Biden, and McCain all supported that "bailout bill", that blew away almost a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, with absolutely no return. Where were you , when we examined in DETAIL the bailout bill here on ATS?
You really think things will be any different under Obama than they were under Bush? They are part and parcel of the same gang of thieves. Bush was no prize, but Obama is following in his footsteps. He made lots of promises, and he's reneging on many of them already. As for corruption, anyone who nominates and still supports a person such as Geithner, who failed to pay $48, 000 in personal income taxes, has not shown me any CHANGE. It is more of the same, as far as I'm concerned.

reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 10:48 PM by Animal

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Yes, I would invest in this plan, without hesitation.

I find it very interesting that you so often compare the "bail out bill" to this bill.
Yes they are intended, indirectly to accomplish the same thing.

however they are completely different from one another.

With this in mind I find your comparison to plainly be a red herring.

The bailout was quite simply a give away to powerful economic elite of this country.

On the other hand the Obama administrations plan for "Energy and the Environment" is a list of clear objectives that the government will invest in.

Yes they both require spending OUR money but they are not interchangeable measures.

Whats more, the "bail out" was not a transparent undertaking, and was absolutely poorly executed. This does not mean that the "Energy and the Environment" will automatically follow suit.

And to your

Obama is following in his footsteps. He made lots of promises, and he's reneging on many of them already.

I say, Really? Not even a week in office and yu can already see him 'reneging'? On what for example?

reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 10:53 PM by pteridine

reply to post by semperfortis

The conversion away from coal will take at least 50 years. Over 50% of our electric power comes from coal and that is the least expensive power available. The carbon limits will raise the price of coal electricity so as to offset the enormous economic advantage that coal has over other power sources. Advanced coal power plants, such as IGCC, oxycombustion, and chemical looping, will make carbon dioxide easier to sequester while offsetting some of the energy penalties for capture and compression.
While other sources sound nice, the energy density of wind and solar is low, so the "not in my backyard" crew will have to deal with" just about in every backyard." The proposed windfarm off of Martha's Vinyard is being challenged because it will spoil the view for the wealthy. Windfarms in California are under attack for being "condormatics" and chopping up birdlife. People think hydrogen will be the savior. People don't know that the infrastructure change, alone, will be in the trillions and the hydrogen will cost more than they expect. It is a really bad choice as an energy storage compound.
The problem with a change to any othe power source will be the time, money, and materials. If money was available, there is not enough concrete, steel, plastic, aluminum, and copper to do this in less than 40 years. Companies that can build the stuff are not common and skilled labor would have to be trained over time. Permitting and lawsuits would also stretch this out as various factions tried to have you host the windfarm so that they could enjoy the view. The transmission grids would have to be updated and expanded bringing on yet more whining. The idea might be that if you don't allow the transmission lines, you might not get the power you need.

reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 11:12 PM by LLoyd45

Originally posted by Toadmund
Would seem to me that more money would stay in the country since it's not being sent elsewhere to buy oil.
Just think if FREE™ solar power, wind and stuff like tidal power were utilized, no pollution, and is home grown power, cash stays at home.

Green technology is very expensive because it's in it's infancy stage in our country. The prohibitive cost will therefore put it out of the reach for the average American consumer. There's no free lunches..

Keeping the money at home instead of buying foreign oil, how is that bad for the economy, not to mention the countless jobs created in the environmental field.

The doom and gloom scenario seems painted by big oil.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by Toadmund]

Unfortunately these new laws will cause your energy prices to skyrocket since most of your energy generating facilities use coal. When the plans are heavily taxed for these emissions, they'll simply pass the cost on to the consumer.

Barack Obama has spoken before on bankrupting the coal industry with heavy penalties and taxation. Here's an interesting interview conducted with him on the subject.
[yvid]

Originally posted by Toadmund Would seem to me that more money would stay in the country since it's not being sent elsewhere to buy oil. Just think if FREE™ solar power, wind and stuff like tidal power were utilized, no pollution, and is home grown power, cash stays at home.

Keeping the money at home instead of buying foreign oil, how is that bad for the economy, not to mention the countless jobs created in the environmental field. The doom and gloom scenario seems painted by big oil. [edit on 24-1-2009 by Toadmund]

Unfortunately these new laws will cause your energy prices to skyrocket since most of your energy generating facilities use coal. When the plans are heavily taxed for these emissions, they'll simply pass the cost on to the consumer. Barack Obama has spoken before on bankrupting the coal industry with heavy penalties and taxation. Here's an interesting interview conducted with him on the subject. I can't get the embed to work, so here's a link..

Coal

[edit on 24-1-2009 by LLoyd45]

reply posted on 24-1-2009 @ 11:13 PM by Irish M1ck

reply to post by semperfortis

You sir, are a scholar and a gentleman. If more people like you were on this site, I wouldn't constantly be getting warned by mods.

AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.

reply posted on 25-1-2009 @ 12:53 AM by undermind

Originally posted by infolurker

My idea: 2 above ground pipelines from the ocean to the New Mexico desert. Set up shallow concrete trenches covered with glass (that you make out of the sand on site) to limit evaporation. Any extra seawater is put through solar distillation and piped to cities as clean fresh water.

100% domestic production / sale only... once domestic supply is met, any extra can be sold on the open market... since taxpayer money would be used to create this algae farm, we would pay cost + x% only. Generally non-profit until domestic production goals are exceeded then any extra is exported for sale.

Now that's a plan and a half, infolurker.

The required energy input (to reservoir/pump the seawater for e.g.) could
be genererated by solar thermal power, which is ideal for desert conditions.

reply posted on 25-1-2009 @ 06:58 AM by bookofthelaw

I don't think anyone who has any sense is going to argue that change is not going to be hard, and frankly painful but if we want to make it as a species we need to act nownot soon.

Sometimes i wonder so long as we choose the goverment like a 'Super UN', what would be wrong with a world goverment anyway?

reply posted on 25-1-2009 @ 07:11 AM by heliosprime

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
So what does Alex Jones want us to do keep sending 700 billion a year to our enemies. That guy is freaking out of his mind! Energy independence for the US NOW! AJ a shill for big oil!

Ok enough of the $700 billion MYTH.....

America buys $700 billion of a "raw" material and turns that $700 billion into $trilions in products.

Not just gasoline. Of a 42 gallion "barrel" of oil , approx 75% becomes "fuel" at say $1.50 a gallon. Even at that cheap rate yeilds an $87 billion increase. Now the other 25% becomes plastics. On this is made, CD's, DVD's, Cars, almost everything we use on a daily basis. The margin on this is very, very high.

So that $700 billion in raw crude oil becomes trillions in actual US revenue.

The "green" agenda CAN NOT compete with such high margins. Its 'stupid"...

[edit on 25-1-2009 by heliosprime]

reply posted on 25-1-2009 @ 08:05 AM by stinkhorn

reply to post by bookofthelaw

You are wrong, we do not need to act on it now, the earth is not boiling over, the seas are not rising and Co2 is not pollution, it is inert. Co2 can only hold so much heat energy before it hits it limit, then releases is it back into space.

The largest producer of Co2 on the planet is...humans and their burning of fossil fuels...WRONG! It is bacteria. Bacteria convert everything that was once alive into carbon, their respitory process is much like ours when they consume energy. We are but billions upon billions of bacteria put together as an organism.

What populates the earth more than anything else...bacteria. When tempretures rise these bacteria become biologically more active, thus consuming more material, thus producing more Co2 as they expire. When temps fall the opposite happens. Humans are nothing compared to bacteria like earth is nothing to the rest of the billions of galaxies in the universe. We arrogant humans think we can change the entire biosphere which is earth by driving SUV's? Get a grip on reality, we are nothing to this planet but food for something else when we croak.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by stinkhorn]

reply posted on 25-1-2009 @ 08:32 AM by FlyersFan

Originally posted by infolurker
Carbon credits are a scam....

Yep. And the sad thing is that some well meaning folks who really care about cleaning up the planet are falling for this scam simply because Al Gore's name is on it.

reply posted on 25-1-2009 @ 08:37 AM by St Udio

If all the government buildings, local/state/federal, were retrofitted with
energy efficient enviromental controls,
Include all the NG, Fire/Police/ hospitals, military bases.

then coal fired electric generating plants would be converted.

Green industry such as fuel-cells/wind-turbines/inespensive solar-films
brought about via JCI, OTTR, DTE and other conglomerates
would further reduce the need for coal-fired plants to supply 80% of the Grid Power.

As far as the 1million 125MPG hybrids or plug-ins, that figure is not for the consumer nation--- that takes into account only the government fleets and the (subsidized) corporation fleets...

the government offices & work/living areas, the govt & NGOs fleets of
Green transportation are the first-in-line for all this retrofit & replacement...

the middle class is going to be retrained to provide the sweat & labor
for the infrastructure rebuilding, but have little in the way of a better standard of living, because the credit expansion model is dead,
we peons can share in the good life in as far as we are employed by the central planning elites...

i think youse are all overlooking the nut-&-bolts, while focusing on the idealist goal line in the distance

AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.

reply posted on 25-1-2009 @ 09:56 AM by TheRedneck

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I ask - does anyone else see a problem with this approach?

I do, for the same reasons you have expressed. I do not trust any government that has continually, for the past half-century, specialized in promoting a class-based society and concerned itself with promoting solutions to problems it has been instrumental in creating, solutions that place average, everyday Americans in tough economic situations individually.

That said, we do indeed need to do a better job of taking care of our planet. Pollution needs to be brought under control and reversed. Somewhere inside, I am hoping that Obama can help with this. Perhaps it is naivety, perhaps it is intense desire masquerading falsely as hope, but I pray it is not.

Carbon credits will do nothing but exacerbate the problems we are now feeling. There is no natural fuel available to us today that does not emit CO2 when oxidized. That includes coal, oil, natural gas, wood, alcohol, or agricultural waste. The only way to extract energy from these fuels without producing CO2 is to use a different medium for reduction than oxygen, and this more often than not results in seriously polluting (usually very nasty) by-products. Only hydrogen can be burned in oxygen vigorously enough to supply chemical energy without producing CO2, and as of today hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen at present must be produced from hydrogen-containing compounds, which in itself requires energy.

We have exhausted the best method technologically available at present for electrical production, that being hydroelectric power. I believe we are approaching the limits on wind power. Solar is not a viable solution for a myriad of technical and practical reasons, and barring unforeseen and drastic improvements, I doubt it ever will be any more than a niche supply used for extremely low-power apps. Of all the technologies I have seen, the two most promising to remove carbonaceous compounds form the electrical production scene are nuclear (yes, I am familiar with the waste fuel problem) and wave technology. But even wave technology is a few years away. The design problems are being worked out now, some requiring material technology advances, and there are still the financing and construction stages to come. These take time. A LOT of time.

In short, we cannot at this time stop the use of hydrocarbon fuels without major changes to our lifestyles. I am not talking about using efficient light bulbs. Do you like your computer? Your TV? Do you like being able to stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer? Do you like being able to keep food cold in a refrigerator or freezer for later use? Do you like being able to cook that food whenever you are hungry? Do you like having lights to see when the sun goes down? Are you glad to be able to go to the store in less than a day of walking or riding an animal, and to do so sheltered from rain, heat, or cold weather?

Don't misunderstand me; we can have all these things in abundance and still keep our planet human-friendly. But in order to do so, we cannot simply stop using hydrocarbon fuels and expect a better fuel to be developed. It's not really a matter of forcing someone to do a better job with energy. That tactic (Which we call around here a 'Mexican Standoff') works very well when the problem encountered is one of a person's willingness (or lack thereof) to do a thing. In the case of renewable energy, the problem is one of insufficiently advanced technology. Physics is notorious for being intolerant to demands by politicians.

I have outlined in previous posts ways that we can drop the CO2 level without endangering the economy, and I have no intention of doing so again here. But carbon credits will serve the opposite purpose. They will artificially raise the costs of energy on those who can least afford it: the average citizen (many of whom are out of work right now). They will also prevent smaller competitive companies from competing, by raising a financial bar that all companies must hurdle in order to exist. Established companies who already have a steady income will have little trouble passing the cost on to established customers. Start-up ventures, which have no customers as of yet, will not be able to do so. So if carbon credits are instituted, be aware that it will be the death knell for any new technology that may be sitting in someone's basement waiting to be used.

Now, surely someone will bring up the theory that we already have the new technology, but that it is hidden away in some oil company's vault, safe from actual implementation that could threaten their stranglehold on the consumer. I believe that as well. But exactly how will carbon credits cause this situation to change? How will they force anyone to come out with that new technology? The simple answer is, they won't accomplish this, and will even make it so difficult for smaller entities to implement competitive new technologies that it will no longer be necessary for the large companies to spend millions to buy up new ideas from the little guy. The little guy will simply be unable to implement them by law.

I should also point out that these newer technologies do indeed exist. I completed a proof-of-concept prototype last month and tested it. I can now state that I have the capability to produce hydrogen without the high costs and energy usage presently associated with it. I will not discuss specifics here; I mention this only to illustrate that the concept of the small-time inventor has not disappeared form the technology scene. If you chose to not believe me, feel free.

Whether or not these carbon credits are implemented will, according to the people handling my financing attempts, have a major bearing on any chance that this will become a public method of energy production. And to be honest, I didn't develop it for public use anyway. You see, I know how to survive, and while a Depression will no doubt be a tough time for me and mine, we will survive. And we will survive with unlimited cheap power. It would be nice if my lights were not the only ones on, but a lifetime of dealing with humans who are either unable to comprehend simple economics or unwilling to accept factual evidence has made me somewhat cynical. I'm thinking of me and mine first.

Should things play out the way I expect, a lot of people will wake up to that realization the good Prof mentioned earlier, with no lights, no communication, and no transportation. It sounds like a horrible situation, but perhaps there is a silver lining behind that dark cloud: some people will not see what's in front of their nose until it hits them in their nose.

Tough love, anyone?

TheRedneck

[edit on 25-1-2009 by TheRedneck]

reply posted on 25-1-2009 @ 10:24 AM by ACEMANN

Obama's plans call for "investing in renewables". That is about as detailed as me telling everyone I was going to "Invest in my future" after I graduated High School. But where would I go? What would I major in? For all they knew, I was going to work in a sub-sandwich shop and save for retirement. Details, please, Mr. Obama.

For those of you with the patience, I submit Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion, or IEC fusion. This is the brainchild of Dr. Robert Bussard - far from a hack.

www.emc2fusion.org...

One banker's pre-bailout bonus would pay for the whole program. This is NOT BS sci-fi.

reply posted on 25-1-2009 @ 10:29 AM by Animal

The problem with this discussion and other like it here on ATS is that the majority who participate become fixated on one issue - Carbon, Carbon Credits, and or Global Warming / Climate Change.

The topic of the Thread is based on Obama's "Green Plan" officially titled "Energy and The Environment".

This plan is comprised of FIVE parts:

* Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

* Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.

* Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.

* Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.

* Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Okay I ca see why so many are opposed to #5 on this list, that makes perfect sense t me and as this is a democracy (lets pretend) all sides should have their say and have an impact on course the nation takes. However does this automatically dismiss the other 4?

How can one argue against these objectives ability to stimulate the economy, produce jobs for USA citizens, and benefit the environment? It just doe snto seem logical.

It is really easy to attack the concept of cap and trade carbon credits, and in this thread I have seen a lot of that. What about $150 billion to alternative energy to create 5 million new jobs. What about 10%-20% of our national energy being produced by alternative sources? What about 1 million electric technology cars on the road within 6 years?

Sure these are not perfect solutions to the environmental problems we face as a nation, and I am not talking about Global Warming which is so often simply a Red Herring in any environmental discussion, but these measures do have the potential to have major beneficial impacts to both the environmental and to humanity.

So why ignore it all because there is a 'cap and trade' scheme involved. Attack that but don't throw it all out because there is one element that you do not like.

reply posted on 25-1-2009 @ 10:56 AM by TheRedneck

reply to post by Animal

A very apt approach. Allow me to clarify my positions on the first 4 of these objectives (I believe I have made my feelings on #5 clear enough):

* Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

My only concern is that the devil is in the details. This particular goal has much in common with the infamous bailout bill: a lack of details (which technologies will be targeted, will this be for start-up or existing companies, how will success be determined realizing that different technologies will require different time frames and will deliver differing result timelines, how will the decision of who to back and by how much be reached, etc.). The purpose I have no disagreements with; I believe that, handled appropriately, this approach would both strengthen our National Security and promote economic growth simultaneously. But I want to see details.

* Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.

Again, I need details. How will we save this oil? Are we talking cutbacks, gasoline rationing, electrical blackouts for so many hours a day, mandated fuel economies at the consumer level, mandated fuel economies at the manufacturer level, etc.?

* Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.

St. Udio above mentioned that this figure includes the government fleet. If that is the case, I can wholeheartedly agree with this approach. If this is going to somehow mandate consumerism (either via regulation or via financial pressure on individuals), I would have to see the details.

* Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.

When I hear the government use the word 'ensure', I get nervous. That word frequently leads to regulation and loss of freedom, which in turn leads to unexpected hardships. For instance, if a company uses a 10-passenger commercial van to shuttle employees around on long trips, they could conceivably be required to not use the van for less than, say, 8 passengers. What happens if only 6 employees are needed for a task? No company can afford to keep a fleet of different vehicles when one will work. So that company would be required to use more workers (forced payroll?) which would raise their operating costs and their price for their service/product, invest huge sums in multi-vehicle fleets, or simply not drive the van anymore, forcing employees to pick up the travel expenses in their personal vehicles (thereby increasing the overall oil usage).

I know we are talking about electricity and not vehicular fuel, but that was just an example of the possible effects of over-regulation. It sounds like a noble goal; now exactly how are we going to do it, and will it raise my electric bill higher than I can afford to pay?

In short, these sound on the surface just fine. But too often government programs that sound great on the surface show their true colors to be quite different after implementation. Obama in a recent speech referenced John F. Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon in less than a decade. Yes, that worked well. But it could work because NASA was in charge of the operation, and NASA is a government entity. Electric companies are not government entities. Auto manufacturers are not government entities. People are not government entities.

I just want details, because I don't want it to fail.

TheRedneck