Category Archives: big coal

Energy Citizens Rally Or Protest Was Not Just Surreal It Was Sad

Posted on by
1

I got into the rally because Roy Wehrle got stopped by Security. The lengths that they went to keep out “undesirables” was pretty amazing. Will Reynolds, of the Sierra Club went in and gave some materials to their Press Table. He was then barred from reentry by 2 Sangamon County Sheriff’s Deputies for distributing political literature. Apparently after that anyone seen talking to Will was a thoroughly dangerous man like in Alice’s Restaurant. When I went in the ballroom they pounced on mild mannered Economics professor Roy and turned him away.

Remember this is the compelling protest designed to defeat Cap and Trade WHICH is the INDUSTRIES proposal NOT the Environmentalists. I like a huge Carbon Tax myself. Most European countries pay 6 $$$ per gallon for their gasoline…and that tax money is invested directly into renewables and infrastructure. Why not do something like that in the US?  This is what the “protest” looked like:

catprotest1.JPG

Photos by Wes King

:}

This is what they stand for:

http://energycitizens.org/about/

About Energy Citizens

Energy Citizens is a nationwide alliance of organizations and individuals formed to bring together people across America to remind Congress that energy is the backbone of our nation’s economy and our way of life.

Energy Citizens are voicing their concerns about the impact climate legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would have on American jobs, families and businesses. The alliance is urging the Senate to get it right and make sure that climate, energy and tax legislation would not take money out of Americans’ pocketbooks and cost millions of jobs.

See personal stories from people across the country, or take a look at the list of participating organizations that have joined Energy Citizens in support of American jobs and affordable energy

:}

This is who paid for it:

http://www.redcounty.com/illinois-business-groups-schedule-anti-cap-and-trade-rally-sept-1st

Illinois Business Groups Schedule Anti-Cap and Trade Rally, Sept. 1st

By Warner Todd Huston | 08/31/09 | 07:41 PM EDT

A group called Energy Citizens made up of 23 Illinois business associations have scheduled a September 1st rally in order to protest the seriously damaging policies of the Cap and Trade bill. The rally will be held near the State Capitol in Springfield.

The event will start a noon and will be held at Crowne Plaza Hotel, 3000 Dirksen Parkway, Springfield, Illinois.

A notice was posted at the Illinois Farm Bureau website.

A lunch will follow the roughly 45-minute event, one of 22 rallies nationwide sponsored by the group Energy Citizens to oppose House-approved legislation. IFB members are encouraged to attend, and may contact their county Farm Bureau for additional details.

The Illinois members of Energy Citizens includes the Southwestern Illinois Employers Association and Wayne-White Counties Electric Cooperative, the Illinois Association of Convenience Stores, Associated Builder and Contractors of Illinois (ABC), Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association, Grain & Feed Association of Illinois, Growmark, Home Builders Association of Illinois, Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers, Illinois Coal Associations, Illinois Energy Forum, Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois manufacturers Association, Illinois Petroleum Council, Illinois Pork Producers, Illinois Retail Merchants Association, Illinois Trucking Association, MidAmerica Energy, Mid-West Truckers Association, Illinois Oil & Gas Association, National Federation of Independent Business, Rural Electric Convenience Cooperative and the Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association.

:}

The saddest part was  they used local “personality” Bob Murray as the MC. I hate to pick on anyone but there is a reason that Bob moved from TV to Radio and there are no pictures available of him below the waist…I mean he is huge. When I walked in he looked pretty normal but when I got off to the side I was stunned. Then he made a joke about it. “I am so big”, he said, “When I asked my mom when I was born she said July 4rth….July 5th and July 6th”

http://www.spoke.com/info/pF0Rf1m/BobMurray

I just wanted to cry. They were giving away bright yellow Tshirts that read, “I will pass on $4 gas”. I wish now I would have grabbed one. There was even a sign that read, “RVer’s Against Waxman-Markey” and another sign that read, “Crap and Trade”.  As I  walked out Murray said, “The great thing about this country is that you can hold a meeting like this and then there is no one waiting for you in the parking lot to shoot your ass”.  He then turned and launched into the Pledge of Allegiance.

WHAT a parking lot it was too. As I walked back to my car, past the hundreds of Lincoln Town cars, giant SUVs and the huge Chevys I noticed that they had filled up half of the parking lot with displays. There was   a huge 16 head combine that had a Rural America Needs Affordable Energy banner slung across it. A huge semi trailer display for Illinois Crude Oil and Natural Gas. To add insult to injury the last display I walked by was 2 bucket trucks with their buckets up holding a banner that said Stop Cap and Trade. The trucks were owned by the Rural Electric Convenience Coop in Auburn that just put up a 1.2 million $$$ wind turbine.

It may take me years to get the images out of my head…..yuck

:}

Oh and thanks to the college students who drove all the way from Chicago when we were thinking about disrupting this madness.

catprotest5.JPG

:}

Energy Citizens Protest Rally In Springfield Was The Most Surreal Event I Have Ever Attended

Posted on by
Reply

I could add sick, disgusting, phony and funny to that list but why bother? I can show you how it was by example. But on the 150 aniversery of the first oil well..it is just plain sad. Oil guys used to be such roughnecks now they are kinda wussy.

The 2 most surreal events I had ever been to before was an Alice Cooper concert in 1969 and the Opening of Ticket Sales at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion for the English Opera Peter Grimes in Los Angeles in 1984. I know Alice doesn’t need any explanation (it does really), but the opening of ticket sales for an obscure opera?

But first a picture:

catprotest31.JPG

(thanks for the pictures Wes King)

It is in a BALLROOM. I have never been to a protest in one of the ritzyest ballrooms within a 100 miles of Springfield. This is the most senior citizens I have seen at a protest not sponsored by the AARP ever. There is no ethnic diversity in the room. I have been to plenty of protests, some where there were simultaneous counter protests and I have never seen this Caucasion of an audience since my last KKK rally. It is probably tough to see but the 2 black skinned men in the room are a waitstaff member at the bottom of the picture and way off in the distance there is a black camera man for the only news organization I saw that day, Channel 20 TV. Considering the cost of this rally that in itself was bizarre. But back to Alice Cooper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA-sjSkRM4M&feature=channel

This Alice Cooper concert was when I was 14, and it was my first rock concert ever. It was in Peoria in a place since torn down called the Cow Palace. Which it literally was. A barn like structure with a dirt  floor where they sold cows (and other live stock). It was my 3rd acid trip…my first in public and I was with my fiance’ Denise and some other San Jose (Illinois) crazies. All the lights were on so it was real bright, and all of the sudden the Wedding March starts playing, these flowers POP up on the stage and simultaneously a man in a tux (stage left), a women in a wedding dress (stage right) and a minister (center stage) all walk to the center of the stage. The audience was stunned. The minister performs the wedding complete with “is there anyone here who may object to this union”? Stunned silence. Towards the end of the ceremony Alice Cooper and his band in their full make up started peering through the flowers. At the “kiss the bride” part the room goes to BLACK, the stage lights come on low and giant trash cans come hurtling over the flowers, followed by Alice and the band…In that 2 second period my life changed for ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUFO_04J1r4

:}

My second most surreal moment could take some set up but I will try to make it as quick as possible. But first another picture of the event:

catprotest4.JPG

I mean really do these people look angry? Do they look passionate about preventing “cap and trade” in the area of carbon production because it has already worked for sulfur? NO these people look like people at the Republican Convention in Minnesota last year.

Anyway in 1984 I lived in Las Vegas with a woman who celebrated her 30 birthday. I had patiently gone to the Lyric Opera in Chicago for 2 seasons with her. Then I said enough! I am not going to another Opera unless it is in English and I was off the hook for a couple of years. BUT someone (probably her sister) told her that Peter Grimes was playing at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in LA.  Yes the same place where the Academy  Awards are occasionally given out. So we got a room in a South Central L.A., yes the place that burned down in the riots which was surreal enough as it was. We went for a driving tour of the LA area (Hollywood, Venice Beach, Malibu) and then we had Oriental Food downtown someplace. The next day we had to go pick up our tickets at the Pavilion. Yes I know that seems quaint now but you had to physically pick up your tickets. While we were waiting in this 500 person line we were subjected to a surprise Japanese Performance Art piece.

http://www.musiccenter.org/

http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/japan/pro-performing_arts.htm

http://outwestarts.blogspot.com/2008/03/attend-tale-of-peter-grimes.html

Nobody was looking up so I have no idea how it started, but suddenly you hear a huge horn sound…like a foghorn or something real deep and loud. I looked up and there on top of the Pavilion (4 stories maybe) was a long robed Japanese figure in an elongated paper masked, flanked on each side by 2 naked guys in diapers. He blew on this big horn again. It was about 8 ft. long and rested on the ground like an Alp Horn:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070905040636AAXDrTt

Then these 4 nearly naked Japanese guys rappelled down the front of the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion Australian style to some really weird Japanese music played through the Pavilion’s very small very tinny outdoor speakers:

swatman6.tripod.com/srt1.html

This rapel took forever. When they landed in front of us they did some short welcoming ritual (I am guessing). The guy on the roof blew the horn again. These naked guys jumped up and down once, turned and ran to the entrance way. They threw open the doors and ran inside the building and the guy on the roof was gone. People were so stunned nobody actually went through the door. Then people started clapping and several brave soldiers advanced into the que.

So there you have it. What I witnessed at the Energy Citizens protest rally yesterday was somewhere between an Alice Cooper Concert and a Japanese Performance Art piece on my surreal scale. WHOA

:}

:}

Why Rightwing Fundamentalism Is So Environmentally Destructive

Posted on by
Reply

Why are Conservatives so stupid. Usually right away I get accused of name calling and class warfare. I usually respond that I am not questioning their intelligence so much as I am questioning their larger view of the world. I point out there is a class war going on and most of us are losing it. In much the same way that the VERY Rich slave holders perpetuated the fighting and hatred of the less wealthy poor whites and blacks, the world destroyers and the mega wealthy must have the lower classes fighting and bickering over “tree huggers” and Cap and Trade. This is what the fundamentalists miss. For lofty ideals that do not exist like “personal freedom” they are watching the only world that we have slip away for the enrichment of the very few.

Further more as I have said for 30 years it is not the “little guy” that is to blame for things like destabilizing the climate and acidifying the oceans. It is in this order, The militaries of the world, the Airline Industry, the Big Smoke Stack users (mainly megawatt coal fired electrical plants), and the Shipping industry. That is it. The little guy can ride his stinky garden tractor, fire up his stinky grill and drive his F150 to work everyday if he wants to. THINK about it for a moment. The aforementioned Earth wreckers want the burdened pushed off on the public. It means they get to keep on polluting because we STOP.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2007/11/14/the-10-biggest-carbon-dioxide-polluters.html

The 10 Biggest Carbon Dioxide Polluters

By Marianne Lavelle

Posted November 14, 2007

Ten large companies generate more than one third of the 2.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted each year by U.S. electric power

generators, according to figures in a first-of-its-kind database unveiled Wednesday.

American Electric Power, based in Columbus, Ohio, and Southern Co. of Atlanta, which run the largest coal power plants in the country, top the list of U.S. companies responsible for greenhouse gas emissions from electricity, according to data compiled by the Center for Global Development, a global economic development think tank in Washington, D.C.

The database, called CARMA or Carbon Monitoring for Action, culls for the first time data both from government regulators around the world and commercial databases to provide an up-to-date look at the state of CO2 from power production—which accounts for one quarter of all carbon emissions. (The database doesn’t look at other large sources, like transportation and manufacturing.) Here are the top sources of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation in the United States:

The 10 Biggest Carbon Dioxide Polluters

COMPANY TONS OF CO2 PER YEAR
1. American Electric Power 174 million
With 5 million customers in 11 states from Ohio to Texas, its biggest carbon emissions come from its Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, Ohio.
2. SOUTHERN 172 million
Has 4.3 million customers in the Southeast and owns the top three carbon-emitting power plants in the country: Scherer, in Juliet, Ga.; Miller in Quinton, Ala.; and Bowen in Cartersville, Ga.
3. (tie) AES CORP. 108 million
Has power plants from New York to California, with the worst emissions from its Petersburg, Ind., plant.
3. (tie) DUKE ENERGY 108 million
Serves 4 million customers in the Carolinas, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Its Gibson plant in Owensville, Ind., is the nation’s fourth-largest carbon emissions source in the power sector.
5. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 101 million
The nation’s largest public power company serves the 8.7 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. Its Cumberland City, Tenn., plant ranks eighth in the nation in CO2 emissions.
6. NRG ENERGY 82.7 million
A wholesale power producer that operates in deregulated electricity markets throughout the country, its W.A. Parish plant in Thompsons, Texas, is the nation’s No. 5 carbon emissions source.
7. XCEL ENERGY 76.1 million
With 3.3 million customers in the West and Midwest, its largest carbon generator is its Sherburne County plant in Becker, Minn.
8. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS 70.9 million
A Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway company, MidAmerican serves customers in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota, with its largest CO2 emissions from the Jim Bridger plant in Point Of Rocks, Wyo.
9. PROGRESS ENERGY 68.1 million
Based in Raleigh, N.C., its plant in Roxoboro, N.C., is its biggest emissions source.
10. DOMINION RESOURCES 66.6 million
Dominion is based in Virginia, with operations stretching into the Northeast and Midwest. Its biggest carbon emissions source is its Mount Storm, W.Va., plant.

……

Strikingly, three Chinese power companies, South Africa’s giant Eskom, and India’s NTPC all generate more CO2 emissions than any single U.S. firm—underscoring the shared challenge posed by global climate change. The largest, Huaneng Power International of China, has emissions 68 percent higher than American Electric Power’s.

:}

I am quoting extensively from the article because it makes the point rather well. It is well researched and Lavelle is a good writer. In a startling 2 paragraphs she cuts through all the smoke and the fog to the heart of this story.

:}

One of the most striking findings in the data, says David Wheeler, a Center for Global Development senior fellow who led the research, is how concentrated the problem is among a relatively few large power generators. He said the top 100 companies worldwide produce 57 percent of CO2 emissions coming from the power sector. The top 30 companies produce 30 percent of the total. “On the one hand, it’s sobering,” he says. “But it might be hopeful. You could actually assemble the CEOs of those firms, and there might be many channels through which they can organize and address this as a group themselves. I think that’ll be critical to a solution.”

Wheeler was a former lead economist in the World Bank’s Development Research Group, where his team used public disclosure as a strategy to generate pressure from lenders and communities for pollution reduction in China, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Wheeler says his team similarly hopes the CARMA data will be used not only by environmental groups but by institutional and private investors and insurers, to encourage power companies to use less coal and oil and shift to renewable resources

:}

If you want to check the data here is the CARMA site:

http://carma.org/

About CARMA

Posted by Christopher Frazier on March 25, 2006

Frequently Asked Questions
CARMA’s Partners
All About Icons
Plant-Specific Information
Citation Policy
CARMA Version Tracker

At its core, Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) is a massive database containing information on the carbon emissions of over 50,000 power plants and 4,000 power companies worldwide. Power generation accounts for 40% of all carbon emissions in the United States and about one-quarter of global emissions. CARMA is the first global inventory of a major, emissions-producing sector of the economy.

CARMA is produced and financed by the Confronting Climate Change Initiative at the Center for Global Development, an independent and non-partisan think tank located in Washington, DC.

The objective of CARMA.org is to equip individuals with the information they need to forge a cleaner, low-carbon future. By providing complete information for both clean and dirty power producers, CARMA hopes to influence the opinions and decisions of consumers, investors, shareholders, managers, workers, activists, and policymakers. CARMA builds on experience with public information disclosure techniques that have proven successful in reducing traditional pollutants.

:}

Yet yet at least one of the social values issues also comes into play and that is abortion. Now I could go on and on about a woman’s right to control her body and how god does not play an active role in the world so birth is not a “miracle”. But the fact is that the main hatred of abortion by the various world’s religions is based on their desire for world domination. The idea being that once the world is “totally” christian for instance then NIRVANA will arrive. But what this ignores is the Over Population that this has caused. The world population stands at 9 billion people. The Earth has a carrying capacity of about a billion people soooooo at some point there is going to be a huge die off. Probably when my niece Taylor is in her 30s or 40s. I just want to say to my mother and others like her…don’t you realize that you are killing Taylor off?

http://www.overpopulation.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/popaware/article.pl?display_subsection%%%NewsDigest_NewsItem%%1

If we don’t halt population growth with justice and compassion, it will be done for us by nature,
brutally and without pity – and will leave a ravaged world.”
Nobel Laureate Dr. Henry W. Kendall 023934

:}

Tough Decision – My mom is stupid or burning is stupid

Posted on by
Reply

OK so Mom wins but let me very quickly qualify that I love my Mother and I mean that unconditionally. My Mom is a rightwing fundamentalist Christian. So really what I am saying is that I hate the ideology more than my mother. I am not talking about the social agenda either or most of it anyway. I am pro abortion. I think everyone should have one. I am pro civil rights which means I am for samesex sexuality. I think everyone has tried just one. I am for universal health care.

I am more talking about her pro corporate business, pro rich, pro military, deregulation, anti union and anti evolution stances. Mom things that rich people and powerful people are the best. She got this from Eureka College where Ronald Reagan was big man on campus:

http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/07/stories/2009070750300200.htm

Budget pro-rich, says TDP Special Correspondent

‘No solution shown for unemployment and agricultural crisis’

Budget failed to specify how 1.20 crore jobs would be generated’

‘Promoting disinvestment in PSUs amounts to encouraging privatisation’

KADAPA: The Union budget is pro-rich and not oriented towards poverty alleviation and ignored the cause of the middle classes, Telugu Desam Party leaders alleged.

The budget failed to specify how 1.20 crore jobs would be generated, TDP State Secretary V.S. Ameer Babu, TNTUC president S.A. Sattar and party leaders S. Goverdhan Reddy and J. Rayappa Raju said in a statement. They deplored the government’s contention that it would attract foreign direct investment when there was global economic recession and did not specify how it would clear the foreign debt and interest.

The budget did not show any solution to unemployment, agricultural crisis and suicides. There was no mention of unearthing the black money of Rs. 1 lakh crore, they alleged. Inflation grew from 2.8 per cent last year to 6.7 per cent this year. The Bill passed for unorganised workers was confined to paper.

Promoting disinvestment in public sector units amounts to encouraging privatisation, the TDP leaders alleged.

Steps were not taken to curtail the increase in petrol and diesel prices. The budget made no mention of the lakhs of workers who lost jobs in IT industry, they said.

The TDP is opposing the budget, they asserted

‘Highly disappointing’ Tirupati Correspondent adds: Federation of the Farmers’ Association and various other farmers organisations have termed the general budget introduced today as highly disappointing from the farmers point of view.

:}

Which I think should clash with her Christian values. Lets face it, the rich just want more money at the expense of not just the poor but the environment. As long as they believe that their money can buy them clean water and clean air – even if it has to come in a bottle – well then the heck with the rest of us.

http://a4a.mahost.org/fakes.html

DON’T BE FOOLED!

Only after the last tree has been cut down,
only after the last river has been poisoned,
only after the last fish has been caught,
only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten.
–The Cree People

Big Business is terrified of the environmental movement, which remains the single most popular left-wing movement in the US. The dirty secret of Big Business is that it is principally responsible for pollution and environmental degradation around the world. The majority of Americans want a safer, cleaner environment. They know that, and have taken extensive countermeasures to protect themselves from the people at large, including pouring money into bogus environmental groups designed to further industry causes while appearing to be environmentally conscious. They also launch massive PR campaigns to paint themselves green.These anti-environmental initiatives are, in essence, efforts to thwart democracy.It’s important to note that the only green behind these efforts is money, not concern for the environment. These groups are very well-financed, backed, as they are, by corporations and other capitalist interests. What they lack in public support, they make up for in resources and powerful connections.Going over the list, you can see the copious use of buzzwords by the anti-environmental movement, as they strive to create the appearance of a broad mandate and public support. However, these groups are funded and controlled by economic and political elites, with a vested (financial) interest in thwarting and reversing environmental reforms.The following is excerpted from The Greenpeace Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations, put out by the excellent Odonian Press, Box 32375, Tucson, AZ 85751, and is part of their Real Story series

TACTICS

  • Greenwashing: When a company adopts marketing strategies whereby the company appears to be adopting a more environmentally-conscious stance, when really it’s simply doing its usual routine.
      Examples:
    1. Mobil Chemical added a small amount of starch to the plastic in Hefty trash bags and called them “biodegradable” (however, the bags would not degrade if buried in landfills, but only if left out in the sun; moreover, the bags didn’t degrade, but rather broke up into smaller plastic pieces — not the same thing!) A Mobil Chemical pitch man said, “degradability is just a marketing tool. We’re talking out of both sides of our mouth because we want to sell our bags.”
    2. Coors Brewing sponsors a greenwashing campaign called Pure Water 2000 that funds “grassroots organizations [engaged in] river cleanups, water habitat improvements, water quality monitoring, wetland protection, and pollution prevention.” In 1992, however, Coors pleaded guilty to charges that it had dumped carcinogenic chemicals into a local waterway for 18 years!
  • Astroturf organizing: These are industry-funded organizations meant to function like environment grassroots groups, except that they are heavily financed by industry and seek to manipulate public opinion by distorting facts. They seek to put environmentalists in an unfavorable light by launching personal attacks against them, charging that activists are “anti-family,” “anti-American,” and pitting jobs and the economy against environmental reform. They are termed “astroturf” because they are designed to look like they are genuine grassroots movements.
  • Physical violence: Activists are routinely harassed by the FBI, which considers any progressive movements “terrorist” in nature, justifying surveillance, break-ins, arrests, and worse. Activists find themselves the victims of assaults, sabotage, death threats, and worse.
      Examples:
    1. 1990: Earth First! activists Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney were nearly killed by a car bomb — incredibly, the authorities arrested them and accused them of transporting a bomb, which was later thrown out for lack of evidence. The actual perpetrators were never apprehended.
    2. 1992: Activist Stephanie McGuire of Florida was assaulted by three men for opposing a Procter & Gamble pulp mill’s practice of dumping toxins into the Fenholloway River (this mill still does this, btw). They beat her, burned her with a lit cigar, and cut her with a straight razor, while saying “now you have something to sue us over.” No one was arrested in this crime.
    3. The Center for Investigative Reporting noted 104 violent attacks on environmentalists from January 1989 to January 1993, averaging one every two weeks.
  • Government involvement: Through official government channels, whether Congress or the courts or the Executive Branch, government has been shown to regularly side with Big Business where environmental issues are concerned. The conservative 104th Congress recently showed this in its efforts to weaken endangered species laws, open up wetlands and parklands for economic exploitation, and lessening clean air, food, and water legislation. They also cut the funding for the EPA to the bone, all of which pleased industry greatly!

SIX TYPES OF ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

Most industries will rely on a combination of the following to undermine and roll back environmental reforms, lavishly spending money on campaigns to secure their financial gain at our expense!

  • Public relations firms
  • Corporate front groups
  • Think tanks
  • Legal foundations
  • Endowments and charities
  • Wise Use and Share groups

Of these, the misnamed “Wise Use” and “Share” groups need the most explanation. This anti-environmental movement is mostly a western phenomenon where timber, mining, ranching, chemical, and recreation companies banded together to fight the environmental movement. Ron Arnold, the movement’s founder, is a self-described reformed environmentalist, one who has “seen the light”. As he puts it: “We want to be able to exploit the environment for private gain, absolutely.”

Makes you wonder what kind of environmentalist he must have been, with an attitude like that!

“Wise Use” and “Share” (Canadian version of “Wise Use”) act basically as stormtroopers for industry, because, according to Arnold, the “Wise Use” movement can “do things the industry can’t. It can stress the sanctity of the family, the virtue of the close-knit community. And it can turn the public against your enemies.”

Wiseguys are recruited from the ranks of workers at company meetings (typically compulsory meetings, by the way), and through door-to-door canvassers claiming environmentalists are responsible for unemployment.

Here you see a classic tactic of capitalists, turning the working class against itself when they should be fighting their common enemies, the capitalists themselves! News flash, folks — capitalists cause unemployment, environmentalists don’t!

What the wiseguys want was hammered out in their 1988 conference in Reno, Nevada, where they created a 25 point platform cementing their goal to destroy the environmental movement. Below are eight of their “lofty” goals:

  • “immediate development of the petroleum resources of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska”
  • opening “all public lands, including wilderness areas and national parks” to mineral and energy exploitation and to recreational vehicles
  • exempting from the Endangered Species Act any species whose protection would interfere with resource exploitation (buzzword for “capitalist profit”, I’d say)
  • opening 70 million acres of wilderness that is currently protected by the Wilderness Act to commercial exploitation
  • logging 3.4 million acres of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska
  • making enviromentalists pay industry back if they lose cases in court, as well as to pay for lost industry profits (this is the classic “big guy” versus “little guy” tactic, where the industry hopes to scare off potential suits because they know that while they have the money to fight a successful court battle, environmentalists don’t — it’s not unlike a wealthy incumbent’s campaign war chest scaring off would-be challengers)
  • giving anti-environmental groups the right to sue environmentalists on behalf of the industry (this is a real gem, where industry uses these goons as dupes to do their dirty work, while the industry keeps its nose clean — ever the capitalist way!)
  • implementing free-trade agreements (e.g., NAFTA and GATT) that will grant US industry access to natural resources (e.g., raw materials) globally

Looking at these, one wonders where the “Wise Use” comes in! Far from being populists, these wiseguys are snugly in the vest pockets of their capitalist employers. They are what you’d call “ruling class heroes,” I suppose, making the world safe for wealth, power, and privilege — and they even get paid for their effort!

ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

:}

More on this later but suffice it to say that couching all of the above in a religious certainty and finding proof of that in the Bible is just plain wrong. In fact it is what all the polluters want to happen. Ready made stooges.

:}

:}

Kathleen Parker Saying Stupid Things About Energy – So far this year I have had to write posts about

Posted on by
Reply

George Will and Walter Wolfman Williams because they weighed in on energy issues. George Will is a nonfiction baseball writer and Wolfman claims to be an economist, so neither one by definition knows anything about energy consumption except that they do a lot of it. But when Kathleen Parker weighs in on Cap and Trade the whole world must be …what waiting with baited breathe? I mean:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0720parkerjul20,0,3212727.column

Kathleen Parker

Bio

Kathleen Parker assesses the country’s mental health with a reporter’s gimlet eye combined with a sense of humor.

“My ambitious goal,” she says, “is to try to inject a little sanity into a world gone barking mad.”

She came to column-writing the old-fashioned way, working her way up journalism’s ladder from smaller papers to larger ones.

“I never set out to become a commentator – and do continue to resist the label ‘pundit’ – but I found that keeping my opinion out of my writing was impossible,” says Parker. “One can only stand watching from the sidelines for so long without finally having to say, ‘Um, excuse me, but you people are nuts.'”

Her writings in support of American troops, first-responders and other front-line participants in the war on terror were among the reasons The Week magazine named her as one of the country’s top five columnists in 2004 and 2005.

:}

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/biographies/kathleen-parker.html

Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker

» Columnist | Parker started her column in 1987 when she was a staff writer for The Orlando Sentinel. Her column was nationally syndicated in 1995 and she joined The Washington Post Writers Group in 2006. Along the way, she has contributed articles to The Weekly Standard, Time, Town & Country, Cosmopolitan and Fortune Small Business, and she serves on USA Today’s Board of Contributors and writes for that newspaper’s op-ed page. She is a regular guest on “The Chris Matthews Show” on NBC. Her book “Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care” was published in 2008 by Random House.

:}

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1911310943/Kathleen-Parker-A-crude-reality-about-clean-energy-security

Kathleen Parker: A crude reality about clean energy, security

Washington Post Writers Group

Posted Aug 02, 2009 @ 11:31 PM

WASHINGTON — What’s in a name? A bit of deception when it comes to the American Clean Energy and Security Act.A more accurate title might be: the American Clean Energy and Less Security Act.To get to the bottom of what’s wrong with the 1,400-page energy bill passed by the House of Representatives, you have to dig deeper than Canada’s tar sands. And what you find there is just as sludgy — and taxing to process.Crudely refined: The greener we are, the less secure we’re likely to be.

Meaning, we either can be green or we can be less dependent on oil from terrorist-sponsoring states. But under the current energy bill, we can’t be both.

Put another way: The more we cap our carbon, the happier the Saudis are. That’s because most Middle Eastern crude is more easily accessible and requires less processing than what we and our friendlier neighbors can produce.

If you don’t know this, it’s because beer summits are more fun than math. Herewith, a short course for word people.

Basically, the energy bill focuses primarily on stationary sources of CO2 emissions (power and manufacturing plants) and would do little to address mobile sources of emissions, i.e. transportation.

Since virtually all U.S. stationary sources use domestic energy — coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, etc. — the energy bill would do almost nothing about reducing oil or gasoline imports. Foreign sources provide about 70 percent of the oil used in refining gasoline and diesel.

:}

I am not going to report anymore of this drivel than the allowed several paragraphs. If you want your intelligence insulted you can go read the rest of it.  First because she has heard it over and over from the military she believes that WHERE we get our energy from has anything to do with our national security. Because OPEC kicked our economic asses after the oil embargo in 1973-76 the myth has been propagated that our energy sources “hold us hostage”. Well if we had a diverse enough portfolio then that would never be true AND if we had moved away from the carbon economy back then we would not even be having this discussion.

There in lies (pun intended)  her second stupidity that is she fails to mention ANY alternative to Saudi Oil or the carbon economy. She does not take into account that OPEC oil only amounts to about 20% of our total imports. Canada, Venezuela and Nigeria along with Mexico  are our biggest oil partners. Nor does she take into account the alternatives to carbon (batteries) are well underway especially in the transportation sector where gasoline consumption will continue its decline for the foreseeable future until we use NONE at all.

But the biggest hugest irony is that “Cap and Trade” is a time tested Industry suggested method of modifying our emissions. It was used most notably in the 70s to get rid of or mute acid rain. It worked very well and only modestly contributed to the rise in electrical costs. The same can be expected in the carbon market. The fact is that we need to quit burning coal all together or we will burn ourselves out of house and home. She doesn’t even remotely address the issue of our using the atmosphere as an open sewer. Dumb da Dumb dumb…just the facts mam.

:}

Illinois Moves Ahead With Plans To Poison The Earth – Let’s inject toxins into our watershed

Posted on by
Reply

That sounds like a plan doesn’t it?

http://www.sj-r.com/news/x1264048039/House-revives-Taylorville-Energy-Center

 

House revives Taylorville Energy Center

OKs beginning of design work on clean-coal power plant

By DOUG FINKE (doug.finke@sj-r.com)

STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

Posted Jul 16, 2008 @ 11:19 PM

Last update Jul 16, 2008 @ 11:44 PM

A $2.5 billion clean-coal power plant proposed for Taylorville got a new lease on life Wednesday when the Illinois House overwhelmingly approved a bill developers said is crucial to the project.By an 86-5 vote, the House passed Senate Bill 1987, which will allow design work to begin on the Taylorville Energy Center. It is similar to a bill that failed by 10 votes in the House in the closing hours of the spring session.Rep. Gary Hannig, D-Litchfield, said the latest version contains “some safeguards” to mollify utility giant Commonwealth Edison, which opposed the earlier bill. That includes more oversight of the project by the Illinois Commerce Commission.“They were concerned that some of the cost might be excessive,” Hannig said. “Now the Illinois Commerce Commission will have an opportunity to say yes or no to that. We have to prove to the power companies that we can produce this in Taylorville in a clean and economically feasible way.”The Taylorville Energy Center would use coal-gasification technology and Illinois coal to produce 525 megawatts of electricity while controlling carbon dioxide emissions

:}

Or in their own words:

http://www.tenaska.com/newsItem.aspx?id=62

News

Tenaska’s Taylorville Energy Center Selected By U.S. DOE For Loan Guarantee Program; Illinois Electric Ratepayers Could Save Up To $60 Million Per Year With $2.5 Billion Guarantee – 07/13/09

TAYLORVILLE, Illinois – July 13, 2009 – Tenaska, managing partner for the $3.5 billion Taylorville Energy Center (TEC), announced today that, following a competitive six-month application process, it has been selected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to proceed into the term sheet negotiation phase under the DOE Loan Guarantee Program. The amount of the guarantee will be up to $2.579 billion, depending on the final project costs and capital structure.

Upon completion of due diligence and negotiations, the Taylorville project expects to receive a federal government guarantee of its debt, which will greatly reduce financing costs. Because TEC financing costs are included in electric rates under the recently enacted Illinois Clean Coal Portfolio Standard Law, the DOE loan guarantee results in savings of between $40 and $60 million per year to Illinois consumers.

“This is a very important step toward securing a clean coal facility in Taylorville. The federal loan guarantee would significantly reduce the cost of financing the construction of the facility,” said Attorney General Lisa Madigan. “That’s important because cost will be a critical factor when the General Assembly reviews this project next year.”

The DOE Loan Guarantee Program, instituted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is designed to spur technological innovation in fossil fuel energy development. It essentially gave the U.S. government the ability to back loans for advanced clean energy projects, thereby lowering financing costs.

:}

If you want to read a load of crap:

http://www.cleancoalillinois.com/tec.html

Taylorville Energy Center
Taylorville Energy Center (TEC) is a proposed 500- to 525-megawatt clean coal power plant using an advanced technology called Hybrid Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (Hybrid IGCC) to make it the cleanest coal-fired power plant in the world.

Located a mile northeast of Taylorville in central Illinois, the plant will convert Illinois coal into clean substitute natural gas (also known as methane) to generate enough electricity to power more than 500,000 area homes.

The benefits of TEC include:

  • • Millions saved annually on power costs
    • Economic development for a job-starved region
    • Creation of a new market for Illinois coal
    • Protection of the environment and public
    health through clean-coal technology


Plant rendering (high-res image)

Taylorville Energy Center is being developed by Christian County Generation, LLC, a joint venture between affiliates of Tenaska, an Omaha, Nebraska-based power development company, and MDL Holding Co. of Louisville, Kentucky.  Tenaska is managing developer of the Taylorville project.  Since its inception 21 years ago, Tenaska has built more than 9,000 megawatts of power generation.  Forbes magazine ranks Tenaska as the 24th largest private U.S. corporation, based on 2007 gross revenues.

:}

.

.

.

.

And if you want to listen to a load of crap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGxZXBASYdc

:}

For 3 years they have planned, and talked, and schemed….

:}

Run Like Hell The Pollution In The Atmosphere Will Kill Us – But there is no place to run

Posted on by
Reply

and the people who are doing the pollution are lying to keep on doing it. As you know this week I have (it’s) been examining phrases with (jam) hell in them to avoid thinking about how (band) bad things are about to get here on Planet Earth. Now it appears that even if we stop today the oceans will continue to acidify for years (friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySO-gryuO-c) and that means a huge loss of food.

http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/Hellphrases.htm

Run like Hell seems to imply really really fast. Like you can run from hell? Or as the song says “get out of hell before they know you are there”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBcY9HGqehE&feature=related

But there is also something in the phrase that implies that you not look back,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntm1YfehK7U&feature=related

And you you do not stop running until you can run no more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRcQZ2tnWeg&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_Like_Hell

:}

Yet the Energy Industry continues to lie through its teeth about our real choices:

 http://www.alternet.org/water/141202/energy_industry_threatens_water_quality,_sways_congress_with_misleading_data/

Energy Industry Threatens Water Quality, Sways Congress With Misleading Data

By Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica. Posted July 9, 2009.

The industry is misleading the public into a false choice between the economy and the environment.

The two key arguments that the oil and gas industry is using to fight federal regulation of the natural gas drilling process called hydraulic fracturing — that the costs would cripple their business and that state regulations are already strong — are challenged by the same data and reports the industry is using to bolster its position.

One widely-referenced study (PDF) estimated that complying with regulations would cost the oil and gas industry more than $100,000 per gas well. But the figures are based on 10-year-old estimates and list expensive procedures that aren’t mentioned in the proposed regulations.

Another report (PDF) concluded that state regulations for drilling, including fracturing, “are adequately designed to directly protect water.” But the report reveals that only four states require regulatory approval before hydraulic fracturing begins. It also outlines how requirements for encasing wells in cement — a practice the author has said is critical to containing hydraulic fracturing fluids and protecting water — varies from state to state.

One recommendation in that report flies in face of industry’s assertion that its processes are safe: hydraulic fracturing needs more study and should be banned in certain cases near sensitive water supplies.

Hydraulic fracturing — where water and sand laced with chemicals is injected underground to break up rock — is considered essential to harvesting deeply buried gas reserves that some predict could meet U.S. demand for 116 years.

In 2005 hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act, based on assurances that the process was safe. But a series of ProPublica reports has identified a number of cases in which water has been contaminated in drilling areas across the country, and EPA scientists say they can’t fully investigate them because of the exemption.

Now, Congress is considering legislation to restore the Environmental Protection Agency’s oversight of the process. And industry — leveraging its money and political connections — is using the recent reports to fight back.

Since January at least five studies have been published making the case that state laws (PDF) are adequate and that new regulations could hamper exploration (PDF), raise fuel prices and eliminate jobs. Three of the studies were paid for by the Department of Energy and produced by consulting firms that also work with the industry. One of the DOE reports (PDF) was written by the same person who authored a study for the Independent Petroleum Association of America (PDF)

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx3DtXyEqrE

If you are in England you might want to give these folks a try:

http://www.souththamesgas.co.uk

http://www.allaspectsltd.co.uk/services/plumbing-services/

Dave Stern likes them.

:}

George Will And Robert Murray Defend The Carbon Economy With Lies

Posted on by
1

The State Journal Register is just the same old Republican Rag that wants to shine Big Coals boots to stay in business. They ran 3 Right Wing Pundits today and 2 of them Commented on the Green Economy. One who says it won’t work and the other who says that Cap and Trade will destroy the US Economy. The first one, George Will:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032402294.html

Who admits in the very article that the report he cites is the product of,  a right wing radical libertarian economist, was published by a right wing think tank that opposes any change in energy policy besides “Drill here, Drill now” and that has neither been replicated nor peer reviewed. BUT none the less it is TRUE to point out that Spain has an unemployment rate of 18% (which is disputed by many) and that every green electricity production job costs  700,000 to 1.5 million $$$ counting subsidies and green corruption.

The unemployment figures are probably 3 to 4 % lower then he reports and at 12-14 % where the United States will end up by September or October BECAUSE we are in the greatest economic downturn since the GREAT Depression (though no one can tell me what was so great about it) that was caused by rightwing attacks on our financial sector, our housing sector and on labor (car manufacturers). These are his wealthy buddies yah know. He then tosses off another “source”, a report by rightwing Missourian, Kitt Bond who may or may not know anything about economics which comes to a similar conclusion, “Oil good when cheap – Wind and Solar bad” and concludes that a failed policy in EDUCATION will have the same results in ENERGY policy. Did George have a cup of coffee today? It is always tough when your biases show like your butt crack.

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x998784623/George-Will-Reality-of-green-spending-not-promising 

George Will: Reality of green spending not promising

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

Posted Jun 25, 2009 @ 12:02 AM

WASHINGTON — The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating “green jobs” in “alternative energy” even though Spain’s unemployment rate is 18.1 percent — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration’s green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.Calzada says Spain’s torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada’s report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies — wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report “eco-corruption” leaving a “footprint of sleaze” — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain’s economy.:}

Normally I would not even dein this kind of obvious “paid to play” kind of Drivel, because if I wrote a blog for everytime George Will was wrong or lying I would never get anything done, but when the SJ-R follows that with an attack on Cap and Trade (the industries OWN proposed solution) written by known liar and coal mine owner Robert Murray that is just way over the line. Please note their web site:

http://www.murrayenergy.net/ 

These people are proud that they are longwall miners and mountain TOP destroyers and even ash producers. To wit:

Murray is the largest privately owned coal company in America
Murrary Energy CorporationProducing approximately 30 million annual tons of bituminous coal that provides affordable energy to households and businesses across the country. We have eight (8) underground and surface mining operations, plus 40 subsidiary and support companies. Transporting coal via truck, rail and waterways, we operate the second largest fleet of longwall mining units in the country. With a support team of 3,000 hard-working, dedicated, and talented employees in six (6) states, Murray Energy Corporation provides efficient, safe, and affordable high-quality coal to the country’s leading electric producers, domestically and abroad.

Energy, Efficiency, Effective leadership . . .
Celebrating 20 years of building America’s energy future, and utilizing the industry’s most modern mining technologies today to enhance safety, improve productivity and reduce costs. We credit our employees and talents of the team assembled to provide this reliable, low-cost energy source. Murray is transforming America’s most abundant natural energy resource into electricity, powering America’s future. Murray Energy’s team, from the CEO to the coal miner, along with their effective managers use state-of-art technology and engineering principles, all to the production of energy..

Commitment . . .
Is the driving force behind Murray Energy producing and delivering to get the most reliable and affordable energy supplied to our customers. From our leadership and management, to our workforce, commitment is the center of our focus to produce every ton of coal safely, efficiently, and to provide the most affordable energy for the benefit of all Americans and the Country

:}

And he says:

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x998784635/Robert-Murray-Waxman-Markey-bill-will-destroy-U-S-coal-industry

Robert Murray: Waxman-Markey bill will destroy U.S. coal industry

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

Posted Jun 25, 2009 @ 12:04 AM

Perhaps the most destructive legislation in our country’s history will be voted on, maybe as soon as next week, in the U.S. House of Representatives — the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill. It is a misguided attempt to address climate change.It will have adverse and lingering consequences for every American.It will raise the cost of electricity in our homes, the fuel for our cars, and the energy that produces our manufacturing jobs, with little or no environmental benefit.Further, independent experts estimate that it will cost Americans more than $2 trillion in just over eight years. All Americans in the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain regions will be drastically affected because the climate change legislation will destroy the nation’s coal industry and the low-cost electricity it has provided to these regions for generations. Wealth will be transferred away from almost every state to the West Coast and New England.The most abundant and by far least expensive energy source in our country for generating electricity is coal. America’s coal reserves rival the energy potential of Saudi Arabian oil.

:}

Nowhere does he cite actual sources or anything else. No one at the SJ-R calls him on it or points out that “Cap and Trade” was very effective at getting rid of sulfur dioxide.  If coal were not such a nasty energy source we would not be getting rid of it. WHAT doesn’t he understand about “Leave it in the ground”?

:}

From Infinity And Beyond – Electricity from kites…yes yes Kites

Posted on by
1

After an extended meditation like I just concluded on the Federal Energy Tax Credits (please click 2008 elections, international environmental groups and religion categories for more examples),  I am always at a loss for where to go next. I find it useful to just blow it out! So from Live Science and Yahoo I bring you some of the most implausible energy thoughts ever encountered by man:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/powerfulideasmileshighkitescouldgenerateelectricity

http://www.livescience.com/environment/090622-kite-wind-power.html

Environment

Powerful Ideas: Miles-High Kites Could Generate Electricity

By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience

posted: 22 June 2009 08:21 am ET

Full Size

1 of 1

wind power from kite and turbine
Airborne turbines like these depicted in this illustration could generate electricity from strong high-altitude winds. Credit: Ben Shepard, courtesy Sky WindPower

Editor’s Note: This occasional series looks at powerful ideas — some existing, some futuristic — for fueling and electrifying modern life.

The sky might literally be the limit for wind power — rotors spinning miles high could help supply electricity worldwide.

“There is a huge amount of energy available in high-altitude winds,” said researcher Ken Caldeira at the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, Calif. “These winds blow much more strongly and steadily than near-surface winds, but you need to go get up miles to get a big advantage. Ideally, you would like to be up near the jet streams, around 30,000 feet.”

All told, if wind turbines miles above the planet were tethered to 10 percent of the world’s land, there is enough energy in these jet stream winds to meet world demand 100 times over, researchers said.

Jet streams are meandering belts of fast winds at altitudes between 20,000 and 50,000 feet. They shift seasonally, but are otherwise persistent features in the atmosphere. Jet stream winds are generally steadier and 10 times faster than wind near the ground, making them a potentially vast and dependable source of energy.

But how to capture the wind so high?

Kites and tethers

A number of technological schemes have been proposed to harvest energy from these high-altitude winds, including tethered, kite-like wind turbines lofted miles high. Up to 40 megawatts of electricity could be generated by current designs and transmitted to the ground via tether.

Using 28 years of weather data, the researchers developed the first-ever global survey of high-altitude wind energy.

“We found the highest wind power densities over Japan and eastern China, the eastern coast of the United States, southern Australia, and north eastern Africa,” said researcher Cristina Archer, an atmospheric scientist at California State University in Chico.

:}

You can go to the Energies site to see the scientific part of the study:

http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/2/340

Mesoscale Simulation of Year-to-Year Variation of Wind Power Potential over Southern China

Steve H. Yim 1 email, Jimmy C. Fung 1,2 email and Alexis K. Lau 1,3,* email

1 Institute for the Environment, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
2 Department of Mathematics, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 27 April 2009; in revised form: 27 May 2009 / Accepted: 1 June 2009 / Published: 3 June 2009

PDF Full-textDownload PDF Full-Text (1202 KB)

Abstract: The objectives of this study are to combine historical observations and state-of-the-art numerical models (MM5/CALMET system) to map the spatial distribution of wind resources in high resolution, and to help foster a deeper understanding of the wind power potential over southern China (Guangdong). Hourly wind fields were simulated for three entire years (2004-2006). It found that almost 70% of the time, the wind speed along the coast of Guangdong is over 5 m/s, which is deemed a baseline magnitude for typical wind turbines. Spatial plots of the wind speed and power and their variations over Guangdong Province for the three years are also presented.

 

:}

 

For the SEX part of it…Generating energy from the jet stream …well it is awful high up there (40-50 miles), really really cold (100 degrees below zero) and really close to the cosmic rays…and it has been around for awhile. I mean looking up is to dream right?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVi_-dlDVcw

http://sleepgreen.info/?tag=energy

KINETIC ENERGY CREATES ELECTRICITY

Posted by admin | Green News | Wednesday 21 January 2009 2:43 pm

 

 

Dutch astronaut Dr Wubbo Ockels has successfully demonstrated i Netherlands his new energy concept. He has flown a high-flying energy kite, creating kinetic energy from huge radio-controlled highflying kites. He has designed ‘ladder-mills’ to store the kinetic energy and convert it into electricity.
Three such ladder-mills provide enough electricity to power one city. The experiment was carried out along the northern coastline of The Netherlands where there’s usually more than enough wind to raise the gigantic kites into.The radio- controlled, high-flying kites can create some 10,5kw electricity each, Dr Ockels told a local radio station.High-altitude kites could be used to generate clean energy at a cost comparable with that of fossil fuel generation , researchers claim.The “Ladder-Mill” is a chain of controllable wing-like kites attached to a looped cable stretching more than five miles into the sky.Strong high altitude winds acting on the “kitewings” produce as upward force on one side of the loop and a downward force on the other, causing it to rotate.The slowly turning cable drives a power generator in the Ladder-Mill base station.Although the concept sounds far fetched, its developers at Delft Technical University in the Netherlands hope to build a working model in the next four years.

They claim one Ladder-Mill could generate 100 megawatts of electricity, compared with only a few megawatts from a conventional wind turbine.

Winds at 30,000ft are 20 times more powerful than at sea level.

Professor Ockels, an ex-astronaut and head of the European Space Agency’s education office, told The Engineer magazine: “Above a certain altitude there is a massive amount of wind power.

Source:
http://alt-e.blogspot.com/2004/12/wind-power-laddermills-high-altitude.html
http://www.rense.com/general78/kinet.htm

:}

Did you know that people have even tried to use kites for COMMERCIAL FISHING?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite_applications

Kite applications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The kite is used to do certain things; one kite or many kites are applied to achieve certain purposes, objectives, or tasks, that is: applications. Humans have applied the kite to bring perceived benefits during peace and war alike. New applications for the kite continue to be found. Only some innovative applications appear in national patents; others are communicated in newspapers, magazines, books, and internet pages. Air kites, water kites, bi-media kites, fluid kites, gas kites, kytoons, paravanes, soil kites, solid kites, and plasma kites have niche applications that are furthering the interests of humans. Non-human-made kites have applications; some spiders make use of kiting.

:}

If you click on 17 or 24 you can see the energy apps. By the way # 24 is funded by Google.

:}

The Day After Memorial Day – In all fairness to the Energy Conglomerates

Posted on by
Reply

The US Military is the largest single user of carbon based energy in the World. When you toss in the other worlds militaries, if we just cut the militaries of the world to patrolling borders global warming would backup by decades. Not only that but the Energy Companies are pushed around by the military big time. No military and the pirates take tankers…No Iraq war no Iraqui oil…No defense against China they suck all the world’s resources up like a vacuum cleaner…Do I feel sorry for the Energy Companies or the Military? No they deserve each other I just don’t think we deserve them. GO AWAY.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925

I am not going to reprint the total article here…this guy did a lot of work on graphs and charts and things but it is interesting and he is not the only person to report on this. It is important to note that the Energy Bulletin has been adopted by the Post Carbon Institute (http://www.postcarbon.org/). Wonder when that happened?

Published May 20 2007 by Energy Bulletin
Archived May 21 2007

US military energy consumption- facts and figures

by Sohbet Karbuz

As the saying goes, facts are many but the truth is one. The truth is that the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world. But as a wise man once said, don’t confuse facts with reality. The reality is that even U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not know precisely where and how much energy it consumes. This is my Fact Zero.

Below I give some facts and figures on U.S. military oil consumption based mostly on official statistics.[1] If you want to reproduce them make sure you read every footnote even if you need to put on your glasses. Also read the footnotes in this article.

FACT 1: The DoD’s total primary energy consumption in Fiscal Year 2006 was 1100 trillion Btu. It corresponds to only 1% of total energy consumption in USA. For those of you who think that this is not much then read the next sentence.

Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.

The DoD per capita[2] energy consumption (524 trillion Btu) is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.

Total final energy consumption (called site delivered energy by DoD) of the DoD was 844 trillion Btu in FY2006FACT 2: Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) sold $13 billion of energy to DoD services in FY2006. More than half of it was to Air Force.

FACT 3: Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total site delivered energy consumption. Oil is followed by electricity (slightly more than 10%) and natural gas (nearly 10%). In terms of fuel types, jet fuel (JP-8)[3] accounts for more than 50% of total DoD energy consumption, and nearly 60% of its mobility[4] fuel.

FACT 4: Nearly three quarters of DoD site delivered energy is consumed by vehicles (or for mobility if you like). Only one quarter is consumed in buildings and facilities.[5]FACT 5: DoD consumed 97 million gasoline gallon equivalent in its non-tactical vehicles and for that it spent 238 million dollars.

FACT 6: In 2006, its oil consumption was down to 117 million barrels (or 320 thousand barrels per day),[10] despite increasing activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

FACT 7: In 2006, for example, DESC reports in its Factbook that it sold 131 million barrels of oil (or 358 kbd) to DoD but DoD Federal Energy Management Report states that DoD consumed 117 million barrels (or 320 kbd).[12]

FACT 8: According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book there are only 35 countries in the world consuming more oil than DoD.

FACT 9: There exist no official estimates. Let me know if you see or hear one. According to my most pessimist estimates it is about 150 thousand barrels per day FACT 10: Whatever the true figure oil consumed by the U.S. military does not show up in world oil demand. See for more explanation under item #425 in October 2004 issue of ASPO Newsletter.

:}

For more of this incredibly insightful and well written article please go to the above website and see it..Even the Military is aware that it is seen as a BIG FAT energy PIG, but it is also aware that NO OIL = NO WAR

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/addressing-the-militarys-energy-efficiency/

Addressing the Military’s Energy Inefficiency

By John Lorinc

 

Report

The folks who gave the world the Hummer, the poster child of fuel inefficiency, want to spawn a new generation of eco-friendly military equipment with cross-over potential in the “civilian sector,” say a group of retired American military officers who released a sharply worded report on Monday calling on the Department of Defense to reduce its “carbon bootprint.”

“The American military gave you the Humvee, and now we’re taking it back,” said retired Adm. John Nathman, the former vice chief of naval operations and an adviser to President Obama, in a conference call on Monday. “You’re going to see some fairly dramatic movement by the Department of Defense in terms of public visibility.”

The report, “Powering America’s Defense,” was published by CNA Analysis and Solutions, a research group based in Alexandria, Va., that issued a previous study on defense and energy security in 2007.

In the new study’s preface, 12 retired military officers lay out the case for weaning the military — and the country — off oil:

Many of our overseas deployments were de?ned, in part, by the strategic decision to ensure the free ?ow of oil, to the U.S. and to our allies. Many of the troops we commanded were aided by air cover from high-thrust delivery systems that only an energy-intense society can provide. Many of these same troops were often burdened and imperiled by battle?eld systems that were energy-inef?cient. Some of the attacks on our troops and on American civilians have been supported by funds from the sale of oil. Our nation’s energy choices have saved lives; they have also cost lives.

As we consider America’s current energy posture, we do so from a singular perspective: We gauge our energy choices solely by their impact on America’s national security. Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy; our dependency and inef?cient use of oil also puts our troops at risk.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking minority member chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, told The Associated Press that he strongly agreed “with the stark conclusions” of the report, whose authors point out that fluctuating oil prices, dependence on foreign resources and an ailing electricity grid imperil national security both at home and abroad.

“Climate change is a threat multiplier,” said Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn, a retired officer and former commander of the Third Fleet.

Defense officials have previously described the American military as likely the world’s largest consumer of petroleum products, with an annual outlay in excess of $13 billion.

Each $1 per barrel increase in oil prices translates into $130 million of extra cost.

Calls for the military to address its environmental performance are not new. But in the past year or so, energy efficiency seems have become more of a priority, from a new solar wall installation at Fort Drum to the purchase of a large electric vehicle fleet for military bases.

:}

After all is said and done, are we safer with all this energy consumption? I think not:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/19-9

Published on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 by Agence France Presse

US Energy Use a National Security Threat: Study

WASHINGTON – US dependence on fossil fuels and a vulnerable electric grid pose a perilous threat to the country’s national security, retired military officers warned Monday in a report.

The threat requires urgent action and the Defense Department should lead the way in transforming America’s energy use by aggressively pursuing efficiency measures and renewable sources, said the report by CNA, a nonprofit research group.

“Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy,” it said.

“The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a security risk,” said the report titled “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security.”

The authors, top ranked retired officers from the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, also point to the strained domestic electricity network as a possible hazard for US military bases.

“Our domestic electrical system is also a current and significant risk to our national security: many of our large military installations rely on power from a fragile electrical grid that is vulnerable to malicious attacks or interruptions caused by natural disasters,” it said.

:}