It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Memo Reveals Subversive Attack Strategy On Clean Energy

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


It's naive to think that the established player on the block (oil, coal) would not fight new innovations that would threaten their enormous monopoly on energy. Heck, they probably killed Rudolph diesel when he showed them his engine. They definitely killed the electric car and public transportation.

But the REAL secret is that there is no replacement for oil. Not at our current rate of consumption. And that isnt going to shrink any time soon. So we can talk about wind, and hydroelectric, solar panels, etc, but it still wont address the fact that we, as a culture, consume too much energy. Period.

As neo points out (in his own divisive, obvious way), many of the players investing in these 'alternatives' are just as big as oil, if not the very same companies.

Yes, we can take enormous steps towards getting off oil and coal with alternative technologies. But the only REAL way to get off oil and coal is to stop consuming


Annual energy consumption in the U.S. is so great that it is often measured in quadrillion BTUs. One quadrillion BTUs, or one “quad,” is nearly equal to the energy consumed by 5.5 million U.S. households in 2009. One quad also, equals one billion million or (10)15 BTUs. The use of the unit “quad” eliminates many zeroes, shortening numbers for discussion purposes. In 2009, for example, the U.S. consumed 94.9 quads (94.900, 000,000,000,000 BTUs) of energy.


www.pennenergy.com...=rss.page =1.html
edit on 14-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by hawkiye
 

I was under the impression that Oil companies had the same corporate tax laws as other companies, getting the same deductions and "breaks." And if clean energy can do just fine without subsidies (which I don't think carbon gets) why isn't it? Investors are running from solar, as an example. They should be profitable businesses by now.


Its called regulation there are myriads of local state and federal laws regulating any variation from the status quo. Like I cannot install solar or alternative energy in my state without government approval and I can't even unhook from the power company without approval. If I want to start an ethanol plant the hoops I have to jump through and fees are unbelievable. Its ridiculous. Investors know the oil companies are doing everything they can to keep their market share by using government force so they do not want to risk their capital and end up losing because they have to fight with government.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

Ethanol and biodiesel can replace fuel oil, hemp and a host of other plants can replace plastics made from oil. Would could be 90% off oil in 3-5 years if we had the will... The tech is there. But you right we do need to cut our consumption to some degree



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (4.86 ¢/L) and 24.4 cents per gallon


en.wikipedia.org...

From 2008 of course these numbers are outdated but give a ball park figure

In 2008 9.1 million barrels of gasoline were consumed 1 barrel of oil makes 42 gallons


9.1 x 42 = 382,000,000 gallons per day

382,000,000 multiplied by 18.4 = $ 7,028,800,000 a day

The federal sales tax on gas of course that is a conservative estimate:

205.254.135.7...
edit on 14-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by stanguilles7
 

Ethanol and biodiesel can replace fuel oil, hemp and a host of other plants can replace plastics made from oil. Would could be 90% off oil in 3-5 years if we had the will... The tech is there. But you right we do need to cut our consumption to some degree


No.

You want to pretend there is a magic green bullet that will allow you and our culture to continue to consume unabated. But ACTUAL environmentalists (not energy lobbyists) will tell you there is no solution to our levels of consumption.

Ethanol and biodiesel work fine on a small scale. On a large scale, they require a level of input that in no way can compete with oil. And can NEVER be produced at a rate that could compete with oil in terms of volume.

Yes, hemp and other plants can make plastics. But that process is not really very sustainable, either. It requires a highly intensive farming system that further degrades the environment, all so people can continue to have disposable plastic items.

You desperately WANT to believe ALL we have to do is switch over to 'green' tech. I get it. It's an easy pipe-dream; you get to pretend the only problem is 'big oil' and that we can continue to consume with no repercussions, if we just tweek the source. But it's untrue. Face reailty. Our levels of consumption are unsustainable.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Did I even say it was an eyesore? But it does use up a LOT of land.

www.google.com... s_l=img.12...10927.17820.0.19565.26.17.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.8Xm4JYtjqIY

Large industrial sized turbines which are installed together to form a wind farm will have a much larger footprint on the land. Depending on the local terrain, wind projects “occupy anywhere from 28 – 83 acres per megawatt, but only 2 – 5% of the project area is needed for turbine foundations, roads or other infrastructure”3. It is in relation to these larger industrial sized wind turbines and wind farms that land use issues become a significant factor in considering the development of wind projects to generate electricity.


Wind farm installations in hilly, forested areas however, present some additional considerations. Several ridges of the mountains in places like Appalachia or the Berkshires have wind conditions that are attractive to wind developers. However, development in these areas requires clearing trees during the construction phase and cutting roads for access to the turbines. The potential land use impact in these areas is more complex and tends to be cause for controversy.


patfox.hubpages.com...
edit on 14-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Right! Didn't OWS just spend months telling us how evil all the corporations were with Adbusters leading the charge, but now wind farm corporations and solar panel companies are the great saviors because they are "green".



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
The environmentalists are the leading groups in the NIMBY (“Not in my backyard”) movement.

Now you are telling us that they are working WITH the oil companies and these other groups.

So much for the ethics of the treehuggers



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Rinse and repeat



Fictional character Archie in a 2 minute video sums of the green intiative better than i ever could not so much fiction is it?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Heres an interesting Article,on Wind Farms...........


Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures.



Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world's largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.


Wind farms can cause climate change, finds new study

And one more......


Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported that about 70 golden eagles are being killed per year by the wind turbines at Altamont Pass, about 20 miles east of Oakland, Calif. A 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks—as well as about 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—are being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont.



But the Obama administration—like the Bush administration before it—has never prosecuted the wind industry despite myriad examples of widespread, unpermitted bird kills by turbines. A violation of either law can result in a fine of up to $250,000 and imprisonment for two years.


Windmills vs. Birds

Here's a real culprit of Pollution.





“Pollution in China.”

EVERYTHING is made in China.

How can we even start with clean Energy in our Back Yard,when our Neighbors next door to us are burning down their homes ?

Something to ponder..............

edit on 14-5-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


heh heh heh ya first they tell us we cant live without this stuff now they are tellin us we gotta live without it.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Kali74
 


Heres an interesting Article,on Wind Farms...........


Wind farms can cause climate change, according to new research, that shows for the first time the new technology is already pushing up temperatures.



Satellite data over a large area in Texas, that is now covered by four of the world's largest wind farms, found that over a decade the local temperature went up by almost 1C as more turbines are built.


Wind farms can cause climate change, finds new study


FAIL

That article refers to small, localized, ground-based temperatures, not climate change.

LOL.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Wow those pics are shocking and deeply disturbing.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7


FAIL

That article refers to small, localized, ground-based temperatures, not climate change.

LOL.





Way to cherry pick the whole post their buddy.................

How about giving me your take on the rest of it ?

We buy EVERYTHING from China,but are supposed to sit back,and collectively forget the products we buy from them,and the ecological damage it causes? Do you close your eyes,when you stare at that Chinese Monitor? Do you make a fist,when you use that Chinese keyboard ?

Do you believe that your not adding to your neighbors burning pit,as you cry pollution ? Its Hypocritical,at best,those who are pushing for "clean energy" as the continue to buy from the Chinese,and continue to buy products made from OIL.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I was specifically refuting the claims you referenced about wind farms causing global warming.

Those claims are false.

I agree with the rest of your post, which is why i felt no need to respond to it.



edit on 15-5-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Wow those pics are shocking and deeply disturbing.


Agree.

Just because we don't see the effects here in America,doesn't mean the Jet stream isn't pushing it ,our way.

More turbines needed...................


That should keep that pollution out of here.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I was specifically refuting the claims you referenced about wind farms causing global warming.

Those claims are false.



The claim you are making is False.

The claim the article stated was :
Wind farms can cause climate change, finds new study

Can cause,not causing..........................

and its climate change,not global warming........


I am glad you agreed with the rest of it though.
edit on 15-5-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Idahomie
 


Actually,your whole post is a Personal attack.


What does any of it have to do with:

Memo Reveals Subversive Attack Strategy On Clean Energy

The only agenda,is trying to derail the thread.

Whats your take on what the OP stated?
edit on 15-5-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


You have a valid point, consumption is a major issue and one that doesn't have a solution yet.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Well it certainly isn't perfect. I would like to see deforestation addressed for sure.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I'm not saying that at all. Greed and corruption are always going to be a factor in humanity it seems. Being green doesn't make it okay to be corrupt. It's on us to be vigilant.


reply to post by sonnny1
 


As I said it's not perfect but if we're going to compare impact, oil is the big loser there. Our toxic relationship with China is worth it's own thread lol. Our dependence on Chinese production shouldn't be an excuse to not try to reduce, hopefully greatly, our dependence on oil.

Thanks by the way



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join