Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.


Indeed, Tom, we shouldn't do, try, or think about doing or trying
anything. After all, we wouldn't want to interfere in any way with the
dividends from your oil company stock.

Moron.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:08:54 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.

Indeed, Tom, we shouldn't do, try, or think about doing or trying
anything. After all, we wouldn't want to interfere in any way with the
dividends from your oil company stock.

Proving once again, that you didn't read it - just the head line.

Moron.

You have truly gone right off the rail - what happened to the witty,
urbane and civil Harry the K?

Oh right- never existed.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

Guru of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:08:54 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.
Indeed, Tom, we shouldn't do, try, or think about doing or trying
anything. After all, we wouldn't want to interfere in any way with the
dividends from your oil company stock.

Proving once again, that you didn't read it - just the head line.

Moron.

You have truly gone right off the rail - what happened to the witty,
urbane and civil Harry the K?

Oh right- never existed.


I read the article, Tom. All of it. I understood it. I also understand
that the road towards energy independence is strewn with potholes.

"Clean coal technology." What a laugh. I've seen the coal/power company
commercials touting a line from Obama about clean coal technology. Even
funnier.

Nuclear is fine with me. I live only a few miles from a nuke plant, and
there is talk it is to be expanded with an additional reactor. Great.
Really.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:58:55 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.

It's his way of taxing the 'under $250,000' group without their
knowledge. The poor and uneducated will simply blame it on the energy
providers - large corporations. Obama, of course, will go along with
that ploy and so will Brian Williams.

Every Obama policy has one thing at its core - the ability to attract
votes.
--

John H

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:58:55 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

You know, I keep hearing all this chicken little stuff about Cap and
Trade and stimulus, and blah, blah.
First off, there is no Cap and Trade. Hasn't even gone through
Congress.
Then there's the fact that what one joker says, like the guy quoted,
means didley squat. Let's see those power bill increases actually
happen. They won't. Politically and economically unfeasible.

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Sticky little facts again rear up. Obama has been and still is behind
clean coal. Look up FutureGen and the resume of the Steven Chu.
Bush killed the clean coal project, and Obama and Chu restarted it
with $1 billion a month or so ago.
Funny he tapped Chu, a nuke advocate, as Sec of Energy.
Obama's not against nukes. But it's a political hot potato, so it'll
be the last tapped. It'll happen. Polls have to get right.
Can't force nukes on the folks, gotta bring them along.
Especially the lefties. You'll never get the real tree huggers.
They're like the Bush and Obama haters. Motivated by jerking knees
only. Have to just write them off.

Just think about it - that's all.

What I think is that all the work being done with alternative energy
is good. I haven't forgotten last year's $150 a barrel oil and +$4.00
gas.
Won't fix the economy though. Need more manufacturing.
Cap and Trade could be an end around outright tariffs.
Sorry China, you won't play on the same emissions field, don't try to
sell your stuff here. We'll just have to start manufacturing again.
Elegant solution, even if it looks something like a sledge hammer.

--Vic

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:39:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

You know, I keep hearing all this chicken little stuff about Cap and
Trade and stimulus, and blah, blah.
First off, there is no Cap and Trade. Hasn't even gone through
Congress.
Then there's the fact that what one joker says, like the guy quoted,
means didley squat. Let's see those power bill increases actually
happen. They won't. Politically and economically unfeasible.

Interesting take.

If you are basing it on a political will, well, it has been passed by
the House. What the Senate does with it is still in doubt I'll grant
you that, but the Dems do have the majority and can pass it if they so
choose.

However, it does not negate the fact that if it does pass, which it
will in some form or another, it's going to have a negative impact on
the economy.

I'm in favor of neutral energy in terms renewable resources, but in my
opinion we're moving in the wrong direction with this. Boone Pickens
had a great idea for wind power and it would have really provided one
hell of a lot of energy. Comitted a sizable amount of his personal
money to the project - $8 billion was going to be the total investment
to build generators, towers, etc. Funny thing about that - to build
the transmission lines, get approvals, EPA clearances, legal
assistance for economic and environmental impact statements,
right-of-ways and not including some emminent domain issues was going
add an additional $4 billion to the project which was an conservative
estimate - it was probably going to cost more. He said it himself - it
would be a money loser instead of a money maker and who the hell is in
business to lose money?

It's going to require some thought and Cap and Trade isn't it. The
Eurozone is moving away from Cap and Trade slowly - that's gotta tell
you something.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:39:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Sticky little facts again rear up. Obama has been and still is behind
clean coal. Look up FutureGen and the resume of the Steven Chu.
Bush killed the clean coal project, and Obama and Chu restarted it
with $1 billion a month or so ago.

I can only say that Obama has stated, outright, that he will bankrupt
coal fired generators.

With respect to Steven Chu, this is the same guy who didn't know that
as head of the Department of Energy, he was in charge of oil/gas
drilling policy. I wouldn't put a lot in his basket.

Then there's this from the Futuregen site.

"What kind of coal will FutureGen use?

FutureGen has been designed to operate at its best using either of two
primary types of coal: bituminous (e.g. Ill#6, Pit#8) and
subbituminous (e.g. Powder River Basin). However, the plant is being
designed to operate on other coals such as lignite. The Alliance plans
to test a wide variety of coals during its operation, to better
understand how these coals perform in near-zero emission gasification
operations."

Let's start with Powder River Basin coal. That type of coal is largely
strip mined with a 1 to 1 recovery rate - meaning that there isn't a
lot of material to back-fill as is required in other strip mining
opertions - meaning that the land cannot be recovered.

Add to this to your "fact" - this is a culturally sensitive are for
First Americans and opening more than the already 15 mines in the area
will be fought on several levels from enviromental to cultural. Winona
LaDuke is heading up a local environmental and cultural challenge to
opening up any more mines and the Sierra Club, along with the Greens,
are funded and ready for a fight.

With respect to ILL#6 and Pit#8, well guess what. Coal dust from these
types of coal create a condition called oxidative stress.

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

Do you think that environmental groups are going to allow high volume
mining for gasification plants? Or that these types of coal also
affect pro-inflammatory genes that are not completely understood yet?

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:39:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Funny he tapped Chu, a nuke advocate, as Sec of Energy.
Obama's not against nukes. But it's a political hot potato, so it'll
be the last tapped. It'll happen. Polls have to get right.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...rst-nightmare/

Ahem... :)

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:27:42 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

I don't think there is going to be any sort of free ride on this. If
you find one, let me know.... I'll be first in line....

Sun power. Satellite mirrors in space - capture sunlight and transfer
it via microwave to Earth. :)