DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1960--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: October 1, 2014, 11:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Tue Sep 30, 2014 at 03:06 PM PDT.
Koch brothers freak out in response to Rolling Stone expose
by Joan McCarter
[center]
HTML http://images.politico.com/global/news/110130_koch_protest_ap_328.jpg[/center]
David Koch, not holding up well under scrutiny.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183515.bmp
Tim Dickinson's [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/>fantastic expose of the Koch brothers in the latest issue of
Rolling Stone has gotten plenty of attention. For very good
reason: it's a well-sourced, deep dive into the very
toxic—literally toxic— [img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png[/img]business<br
/>that earned the Kochs enough money to buy up an entire politic
al
party. That and the wrongful death judgement, six felony and
numerous misdemeanor convictions, the tens of millions of
dollars in fines, and the trading with Iran are all included in
the story, well worth your time.
No one has given it more attention, it seems, than the
notoriously thin-skinned Kochs. In typical Koch fashion, they
don't argue the facts of Dickinson's story. They attack
Dickinson, who responds here. Here's the nut of his detailed
response.
[quote]Koch, in particular, takes umbrage with my reporting
practices.
For the record: In the weeks prior to publication, beginning
September 4th, Rolling Stone attempted to engage Koch Industries
in a robust discussion of the issues raised in our reporting.
Rolling Stone requested to interview CEO Charles Koch about his
company's philosophy of Market Based Management; Ilia Bouchouev,
who heads Koch's derivatives trading operations, about the
company's trading practices; and top Koch lawyer Mark Holden
about the company's significant legal and regulatory history.
The requests to speak to Charles Koch and Bouchouev were simply
ignored. Ultimately, only Holden responded on the record, only
via e-mail and only after Holden baselessly insinuated that I
had been given an "opposition research" document dump from the
liberal activist David Brock. (This is false.) From my
perspective as a reporter, Koch Industries is the most hostile
and paranoid organization I've ever engaged with—and I've
reported on Fox News ;D. In a breach of ethics, Koch has also
chosen to publish email correspondence characterizing the
content of a telephone conversation that was, by Koch's own
insistence, strictly off the record. […]
[I]n the main, the Koch responses attempt to re-litigate closed
cases — incidents where judges, juries, and, in one case, a
Senate Select Committee, have already had a final say. They only
muddy waters that have been clarified by a considered legal
process.
[/quote]
Dickinson then provides an exhaustive, 14-point taken down of
each of the Kochs' complaints about his story, including every
instance in which the Kochs do not actually dispute the facts
that he has reported, but attempt to obfuscate them and whine
about that fact that he reported them. They also don't
acknowledge that Dickinson attempted to give them the
opportunity to talk to him about his story while reporting, but
they refused.
The Kochs clearly do not stand up well to close scrutiny, and
clearly are not prepared for it. For some reason, probably
because they're richer than god, they seem to assume that they
should be able to swoop into our political system and attempt to
buy it without being subject to close examination.
That attitude, along with their long history of abusing people,
the environment, and the political system, is doing them no
favors. They've made themselves the subject of this election,
and if Democrats hold the Senate, it will largely be because the
Kochs have made themselves such good enemies.
HTML http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/30/1333457/-Kochs-brothers-freak-out-in-response-to-Rolling-Stone-expose
#Post#: 2047--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: October 17, 2014, 9:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
10/17/2014 04:08 PM
How Big Coal
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>& Big Oil
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png<br
/>Control Elections
SustainableBusiness.com News
We didn't hear "war on typewriters" when the industry
disappeared as the Internet emerged, and we aren't hearing "war
on newspapers" even though thousands of journalists have been
laid off.
But coal is a different story. Even though the industry
supplies just 0.6% of Kentucky's jobs, both the Democrat and
Republican Senate candidates are falling over themselves on who
can defend it the most.
Coal isn't under attack because of impending EPA regulations as
both Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes and Republican incumbent
Mitch McConnell would have us believe. Thousands of workers have
been laid off in recent years because of automated production
and because production as a whole is down - cheaper, abundant
natural gas is taking its place.
Only 11,885 people work for coal companies in Kentucky, down
from 75,000 in the 1940s. While the industry fights back against
regulations that would protect workers' health, locals love it
when they donate money for schools and other public services.
And some rural areas of the state do still rely on coal for
employment, reports InsideClimate News.
Mountaintop Removal Mining requires many fewer workers:
Instead of telling the truth about all this, and pointing to
clean, renewable energy as a future job engine, the candidates
and out-of-state donors stoke the coal card.
How about saying, We can be like Massachusetts which will soon
have 100,000 clean energy jobs?
The Kentucky Opportunity Coalition (tied to Karl Rove), for
example, spent $750,000 on a 12-week digital ad campaign "to
educate Kentuckians on the disastrous policies of the Obama
Administration when it comes to the Commonwealth's coal-based
economy, reports InsideClimate News.
As usual, we have to look to where the money comes from. Most of
McConnell's contributions come from the Koch Bros, the fossil
fuel industry and investors in coal plants.
Read our article, While Feds Fund Coal Miner Re-Training,
Conservatives Lie in Ads.
Chevron Buys An Election
Meanwhile in Richmond, California, Chevron is hard at work on
the local level, making sure the mayor and council members don't
regulate its massive refinery there.
It started in 2012, when an explosion at the refinery sent
15,000 people to the hospital as chemicals spewed into the air.
The city sued and has been putting the clamps on the plant.
In response, Chevron is spending about $3 million in this tiny
election to get the "right" ;D mayor and city council members
elected
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png.<br
/>It's spent over $1 million on the mayor's race alone, in
contrast to the opponent's $22,000. Most disgusting is Chevron's
"Richmond Standard" website - a "community news service" that
produces propaganda that puts Chevron and its candidates in a
positive light, while demonizing the others.
Thanks to the Supreme Court Citizens United decision,
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png<br
/>corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money in federal a
nd
local elections.
But the fossil fuel industry has been rigging the system for a
long time. Just since 2008, the oil industry spent over $1.1
billion - $961 million to lobby Congress and $146 million on
campaign contributions - enough for each member of Congress to
get $2 million, according to Fuels America.
Learn how a student exposed Chevron:(at link below)
Website:
www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-chevron-deluge-of-camp
aign-money-20141013-column.html#page=1
#Post#: 2130--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: October 31, 2014, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move][font=courier]More Proof that [i]Mens Rea is the DEFAULT
position of polluters while our DYSFUNCTIONAL COURT SYSTEM
(unless you are a fascist polluter, of course! ) pretends
otherwise. >:([/font][/i][/move]
[img width=640
height=440]
HTML http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/berman.jpg[/img]
Secret Tape Exposes Fracking Industry Playing Dirty
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
Right-wing public relations consultant/astroturf king Richard
Berman probably wasn’t very happy when he saw yesterday’s New
York Times. Like the now infamous American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC), Berman’s success depends in large part on
anonymity. He is known for his use of what’s called “astroturf”
groups—organizations that appear to be community or citizen
advocacy groups with names like “Center for Consumer Freedom”
but are really shell groups for untraceable corporate
donations—to attack labor unions, environmental laws, attempts
to regulate the food industry and anti-smoking measures. Lately,
he’s been a conduit for fossil fuel interests with his Big Green
Radicals campaign, based on the mockery and personal destruction
of those who advocate for the environment.
But one industry executive had enough. The anonymous executive
leaked a tape to the New York Times of a June event in Colorado
Springs at which Berman and Jack Hubbard, a vice president at
Berman & Company, were soliciting money from oil and gas
executives for the Big Green Radicals effort, telling them that
[size=12pt]they needed to exploit fear, greed and anger, and to
stoke resentment against environmentally-minded celebrities.
[/size]The executive told the New York Times the presentation
left a bad taste in his mouth.
Last spring, that campaign placed billboards in a pair of states
where the explosive growth of fracking has raised community
opposition and demands for more regulation or banning the
process altogether—Pennsylvania and Colorado. They mocked
celebrities who had records of environmental advocacy such as
Lady Gaga, Yoko Ono and Robert Redford. “Demands green living.
Flies on private jets,” said the Redford Billboard.” “Would you
take energy advice from a woman who wears a meat dress?” said
the Lady Gaga billboard. The head-scratching billboard featuring
Yoko Ono said, “Would you take energy advice from a woman who
broke up the Beatles?”
At the secretly taped presentation, Berman and Hubbard laid out
their strategy of playing dirty, saying “You can win ugly or
lose pretty.”
Winning ugly is what he specializes in. The BigGreenRadicals
website attacks big environmental groups like the Sierra Club,
Food & Water Watch and the Natural Resources Defense Council,
saying these organizations “have morphed into multi-million
dollar lobbying machines that use questionable tactics to scare
the American public and policymakers into supporting unnecessary
and unreasonable policies.”
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Agelbert NOTE: See Orwell. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png[/img]<br
/>Also, DON'T hold your breath waiting for some law firm to sue
these villains for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, libel,
conspiracy to defame and libel in the service of profit at the
expense of human health from polluting fossil fuel corporations,
conspiracy to degrade democracy through mendacious propaganda,
misuse of media, violation of truth in advertising (and so on,
etc.). THAT is NOT what LAWYERS are PAID to DO in the HANDMAIDEN
of FASCISM called the Court System. Get it?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif
Don't worry, if you
don't GET IT now, you soon will...
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb050.gif
Full article here:
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/31/richard-berman-fracking-industry-plays-dirty/
#Post#: 2180--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: November 8, 2014, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]Agelbert NOTE: The fossil Fuelers DOING WHAT THEY DO -->
see Orwell, Karl Rove tactics and also pots and kettles, etc.
[/move]
[img width=100
height=080]
HTML http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000370273/polls_Smiley_Angry_256x256_3451_356175_answer_4_xlarge.png[/img]
11/07/2014 02:53 PM
Conservatives Take Aim at Wind Production Tax Credit, Once Again
>:(
SustainableBusiness.com News
Republicans are moving quickly on their first agenda items,
starting with ensuring the Production Tax Credit (PTC) - so
critical to the wind industry - doesn't get renewed.
The industry is simply too successful and they
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif
want it
to go away, as well as state Renewable Portfolio Standards that
support it.
After Republicans filibustered a bill this spring, Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised to get it to the
floor after the midterm elections, and he plans to introduce a
Tax-Extenders bill next week, which includes the PTC.
After its strongest year ever in 2012 with 13.2 gigawatts (GW)
installed, the US wind industry struggled through 2013 after the
PTC expired - with a mere 2.8 GW of projects.
"Efforts to renew these incentives are being blocked by
Republicans in Congress," says Reid. "Letting these critical
incentives expire is not an option. Tax incentives level the
playing field for energy, they help make renewables more
affordable for consumers and more attractive to investors."
But that goes against fossil fuel interests, who say the exact
opposite: The wind tax credit "restricts access to affordable
energy" and "hides the true cost of wind power." [img width=80
height=40]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg[/img]<br
/> [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
Conservatives line up against the PTC
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
Using the headline, Nationwide Coalition Urges Congress to End
Wind Welfare ;) ;D, 66 organizations
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>sent a letter to Republican leaders of both houses, making it
clear the PTC should not be renewed. It is signed by groups like
Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth, Heritage
Action for America and Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Agelbert NOTE: 66 Organizations? I think they left out one "6".
;D But then "666" would have been a bit obvious... [img
width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png[/img]
Here's an excerpt: Agelbert NOTE: Grab your barf bag before
reading. ;D
"The PTC is a key part of President Obama and Majority Leader
Reid's attack on affordable energy from natural gas, coal, and
nuclear."
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>
"Rejecting efforts to extend the PTC is a
[i][color=red]meaningful way
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6348.gif
for this
Congress to oppose the President's climate plan.
"Extending the PTC restricts Americans' access to affordable
and reliable energy.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif<br
/>The PTC harms Americans in two important ways: it hides the tr
ue
cost of wind power and encourages states to keep expensive wind
power mandates. This makes it easier for the President to
promote his restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from
existing power plants because the PTC hides the true costs from
ratepayers.
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>
The PTC enables wind operators to use the tax code to engage in
predatory pricing
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif<br
/>against reliable
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp<br
/>and [size=12pt]affordable
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
nuclear,
coal, and natural gas power plants.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/165fs373950.gif
The PTC is such
a large subsidy that industrial wind facilities can actually pay
the electrical grid to take their electricity and still make
money. This predatory pricing is designed to drive nuclear,
coal, and natural gas generators out of business and it is only
profitable because of the PTC."
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>[/size][/i][/color]
[img width=240
height=120]
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg[/img]
PTC Extension
Harry Reid wants the PTC renewed retroactively and is proposing
a 2-year extension.
As many of you know, the PTC has been on-again, off-again,
providing an uncertain climate for growth of the wind industry.
As part of the "fiscal cliff" deal, the PTC was renewed for
2013, and now the industry is struggling to get it through yet
again.
Luckily, in the last go-round, the rules were changed so that
projects just had to be started - not finished - by the end of
2013, opening a bigger window for new projects. Recently, the
IRS helped by giving some more room for the industry to qualify
for the credit.
Without the PTC, the US Energy Information Administration
expects growth will slow significantly again after 2016, when
current projects are finished.
And that's exactly what fossil fuel interests want!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013200859.png
Thanks to the wind PTC, the US is one of the largest, fastest
growing wind markets, employing some 80,000 Americans in
businesses that manufacture 70% of components in the US.
Prices for wind energy have dropped substantially and are the
same or even lower than fossil fuels now in most cases!
It's laughable that fossil fuel advocates call the PTC
"welfare," even as they continue fighting to keep their
century-long tax credits. Because the US doesn't have an energy
policy, the tax code has been used to spur growth in all kinds
of energy, but most extravagantly, oil, coal, gas and nuclear
... not wind and other renewables.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
In the same fiscal cliff deal that renewed the PTC, fossil fuel
industries retained their tax advantages, amounting to $46
billion over the next 10 years. The wind PTC would cost $18
billion if it remained in place during that time.
Wind now supplies 5% of our electricity with 61 GW installed,
expected to 9% by 2020. It provides almost 30% of Iowa's
electricity and South Dakota is close behind.
To level the playing field with conventional energy, Obama's
Science Advisors recommend broadening the PTC to include all
forms of renewable energy and keeping it place for 5-10 years.
Chokecherry is an Example
As an example of the kinds of projects the PTC supports, the
largest wind project in the world was recently approved for
Wyoming - the 3 gigawatt Chokecherry/ Sierra Madre wind project,
where 1000 turbines will be spread across 220,000 acres of land.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-081114140701.jpeg
Wind Farm Chokecherry Wyoming
Sited in one of windiest places in the US, the $5 billion
project will supply electricity to 1 million homes - creating
1000 jobs during construction. It is one of the projects
President Obama expedited as part of his "We Can't Wait" (for
Congress) initiative.
Because of the size of the project and the strong wind
resources, the project is viable without the PTC, but with it,
electricity will be cheaper for utilities and their customers,
says the developer. That's an exception to the rule, he says,
most projects still need the tax credit to be viable.
Here's the full letter:
Website:
HTML http://americanenergyalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Wind-PTC-Coalition-Letter-11-6-2014.pdf
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25993
#Post#: 2355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: December 8, 2014, 9:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Energy Firms
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif
in
Secretive Alliance
With Attorneys General [img width=80
height=045]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]<br
/>
By ERIC LIPTON DEC. 6, 2014
SNIPPET:
[quote]“Attorneys general in at least a dozen states are working
with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in
turn are providing them with record amounts of money for their
political campaigns, including at least $16 million this year …
never before have attorneys general joined on this scale with
corporate interests to challenge Washington and file lawsuits in
federal court.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif
Out of public view, corporate representatives and attorneys
general are coordinating legal strategy and other efforts to
fight federal regulations…”
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif[/quote]
HTML http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/politics/energy-firms-in-secretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html
#Post#: 2356--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: December 8, 2014, 10:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What’s Really at Stake in the Florida Solar Battle?
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gif
Renewable Energy World Conference and Expo opens in the sunshine
state just as the state takes issue with distributed solar
power.
Lisa Wood, Contributing Editor
December 07, 2014
Orlando -- My friends in Florida often ask me why their state
doesn’t use more solar energy. I used to say, “It’s coming.” But
that may no longer be the right answer.
Pro-solar groups see hard times ahead in the sunshine state, at
least for the kind of solar my friends are talking about --
solar panels on homes and business rooftops.
Their worry stems from a vote taken in late November by the
Florida Public Service Commission to end a solar rebate program
after 2015.
Losing the rebate program, itself, isn’t the real problem. The
rebate isn’t as important as it once was, given the dramatic
drop in solar costs, according to Mike Antheil, director of
advocacy, Florida Solar Energy Industries Association.
More alarming is what solar advocates fear may follow; they
question the motivation for the vote and see it as an opening
salvo to bring down distributed solar.
The commission said the rebate program was just too expensive
and too few benefited from it.
“We in the solar industry feel pretty confident that is not the
real reason,” said Mike Antheil, director of advocacy, Florida
Solar Energy Industries Association. “We think it boils down to
the simplest answer is usually the right one. The simplest
answer is that the people who sell us our electricity are
understandably motivated to be sure we don’t produce our own
electricity.”
Antheil and other solar advocates see the commission siding with
utilities and against distributed generation. It could also be
described as the battle between local energy and central
generation. Utilities have a financial incentive to build
central generation — solar or otherwise — since they can earn a
return on the investment. They do not earn a return on
distributed solar panels consumers put on their roofs. In fact,
the panels rob the utility of electricity sales.
If the utilities dominate solar, Florida is unlikely to develop
the kind of democratic grid emerging elsewhere, one where
consumers own and control their energy. More likely, solar will
come in the form of central plants built by utilities.
Florida regulators aren’t sure the democratic grid is the most
cost-effective way to go; the commission chairman indicated he
prefers the more conventional approach where utilities socialize
costs among their customers. He describe the two sides of the
market as supply side (utility solar) or demand side
(customer-owned solar).
“I think there is a need for solar. I'm not sure — I'm not
convinced that the need for solar is a demand-side need. Maybe a
supply-side need. I mean, maybe the supply-side need may be a
better way of handling that need. When you have it on the supply
side, you don't have to have $30,000 in your pocket to put it on
your roof,” said Art Graham, PSC chairman, according to a
transcript of the November 25 meeting.
Fair enough, but are the only two choices a $30,000 bill to the
homeowner for solar panels or utility market control? Policies
in other states would indicate otherwise. Power purchase
agreements, innovative financing and leasing all have emerged as
options to make solar affordable to the homeowner or small
business.
Further, is it a good idea to place the burden for solar costs
on the utility ratepayer when a private market exists that wants
to take up the banner?
“We are trying to shift the burden away from the ratepayers,”
said FlaSEIA’s Antheil. “As a ratepayer, I have to pay for the
new nuclear facility, the new coal and natural facility. I have
to pay for industrial scale solar, if they choose to do that.
But the solar market wants to shift that investment burden away.
That’s why an incentive for a demand-side program, a residential
program is so beneficial.”
Even an incentive of just five percent of the total cost of the
installed system, would spur the private market to come to the
table with the other 95 percent, he said. “That’s a deal for the
ratepayer.”
What else could help reduce solar costs for the consumer? Better
financing options and property tax exemptions for homeowners and
commercial properties with solar, he said. Antheil also
suggested that the state look more carefully at the true value
of solar beyond just energy production, such as its ability to
improve grid stability and decrease line loss.
Most of all, he said, the state needs to keep intact its rules
that allow net metering — which gives the home or business the
ability to gain credit for selling solar power back to the grid.
And therein lies the biggest worry among solar advocates in
Florida.
“I think there is a clear threat and danger to net metering,”
said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance
for Clean Energy (SACE). “You see them laying the ground work
for this.”
He fears the state will try to impose a standby charge or adjust
the rate to weaken net metering, the cornerstone of the
distributed generation market in Florida.
Others take a less gloomy view of events in the sunshine state.
Justin Hoysradt, Vote Solar’s regional manager Florida, says
that he is “cautiously optimistic.” He pointed out that the
commission has announced that it will hold an undocketed
workshop (date yet to be set) to discuss future solar policy.
“The workshop is a signal that the commission recognizes that
solar is an important part of Florida’s portfolio,” he said.
Solar advocates are working to galvanize support in preparation.
SACE released a poll Friday showing strong bipartisan backing
for solar in Florida. By almost a five to one margin respondents
said they were more likely to vote for a legislator who expands
the availability of solar. The poll of 600 registered voters in
Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Pensacola and Tampa, also found
that over two thirds of those surveyed support the state’s
current net metering law; specifically 67 percent of
Republicans, 77 percent of Independents and 73 percent of
Democrats.
Smith said that activists plan to use the public backing to
launch a strong campaign to protect net metering, first by
elevating public awareness, next by seeking legislative support
and finally pursuing a ballot measure in 2016, if needed.
Meanwhile, the state may be a little red in the face (and not
from sunburn). The PSC actions have captured the attention of
the national media. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow gave Florida a talking
to on her show. “In the sunshine state they have decided they
are against the sun,” >:( Maddow said.
Hyperbole? Maybe. We’ll see in the coming weeks as the PSC
releases its written decision and proceeds with its solar
workshop.
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/12/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-florida-solar-battle#comment-138184
William Fitch III
December 7, 2014
Hi:
Demand destruction, keep it simple...
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gifhttp://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
The answer for the population is to do solar anyway, no matter
what the politicians do.
The cost is low enough now whether incentives are there or not.
FORCE them to deal with distributed generation by installing it,
even if net metering goes away. Leave them no choice...
.....Bill
D SolarCat
December 7, 2014
I am a long time solar evangelist stuck in the nightmare that is
FL, where radical Republicans are stiff-arming the fastest
growing industry on earth, all for the sake of greed and
wild-eyed, misguided & dangerous ideology. And while I don't
know how ... I know that one day soon the dam will burst and
solar will grow in FL due to the fact that there is just too
much $$ being made, opportunity and jobs being created in the
States and countries currently encouraging solar. Vile &
hypocritical Republicans AGAIN kill jobs, exhibit horrible
strategic judgement and literally risk the habitability of earth
for future generations in order to stay pure in their
conservative dogma .... let the planet and everyone on it be
damned!
sean o
December 8, 2014
I concur with Fitch. Install solar and lots of it. It is like
voting for distributed grid. :) The more people who have some
installed, even 1, the less they can do about it politically to
prevent it. Those are their votes to stay in office.
William Fitch III
December 8, 2014
Hi:
Just one more thought here; what the pro solar groups should
MOST watch out for is not the elimination of "perks" but the
implementation of "solar penalties".
This is/will be where the game shifts to. Think of this route as
the expression of the typical "double down" which has
characterized the whole radical red agenda in all areas...
.....Bill
Lance Christhelm
December 8, 2014
This is a pretty sad, uninformed debate, right to the top -
"When you have it on the supply side (utility scale generation),
you don't have to have $30,000 in your pocket to put it on your
roof” -- blink blink -- SolarCity does it with no liens, zero
cost, on qualified homes, with credit over 680. So clearly this
is an ignorant "Alan Colmes" puppet surrounded by carnivorous
neocons looking to drink another 2 decades' worth of blood out
of homeowners' energy costs
...ironic part of this debate is, it's mostly moot anyway,
because in a century or 2, FL is going to be seafloor. This
debate is the internal monologue of a suicidal man on his
penultimate day alive, about whether or not to even eat lunch at
all
Azu Nwadei
December 8, 2014
Reading this you would think that there are no modular home pv
systems. You do not need to invest $30,000 up front. You can
break it up into 3 or 4 chunks.
A. G. Gelbert
December 8, 2014
Bill Fitch is right.
I want to add a bit of fossil fuel history of "doing what they
do" to penalize people that want to generate their own energy.
1. In the 1930s solar water heaters were all the rage in
Florida. Read what happened to that no-brainer use of solar
power. I am not providing links. Just do a Google search and
your eyes will be opened. While you are at it, ask yourself why
solar panels were not developed until we needed them on space
craft even though the principle was understood (Einstein won a
Nobel Prize for explaining it) in the early 20th century. And
when we DID develop the solar panel technology, we could spend
billions of the people's money (not private enterprise's, money)
on manufacturing nuclear power plants but, for some strange
reason, we couldn't do that to perfect and mass produce solar
panels in the 1970's.
And even in the 1970's there is a documented case of a utility,
that DID NOT serve the Navajo Indian town under discussion even
though it was in their area, complaining to NASA (who had
installed solar panels to provide power for some infrastructure)
that solar power would 'force" them to lower fossil fuel
generated electricity prices and undermine their profit margin.
NASA stopped the plan to install solar panels in all unserviced
areas in the USA because of that. And you KNOW those areas were
not serviced because the utilities claimed (and continue to
claim disingenuously) that it was "too costly" to run
transmission lines into those areas.
They lied. It is simply not logical to complain about an area
you do NOT service within your customer base geographic location
unless you are not telling the truth about your reasons for not
servicing those areas.
People say I am into hyperbole about the fossil fuelers and
their accustomed criminal behavior. They claim those fine
fellows are just trying to be "competitive" and "make a profit".
If that means monopoly price control and profit over poor people
(see areas they won't service and won't let anybody else service
either) and profit over planet fossil fuel use when Renewable
Energy is more cost efficient , then that unethical,
unsustainable and just plain stupid "business as usual" model
has to go, period.
2. Until recently, in Puerto Rico, an island that has, like
Hawaii but without geothermal, vast solar, wind, and unlike
Hawaii, the best ocean current renewable energy resource in the
world, it was ILLEGAL to generate your own energy. That's right,
you HAD to get your electrical power from the government owned
utility.
Now where do you suppose that law came from? It came from the
captive market, price control monopoly tactics the fossil
fuelers are now pushing harder and harder in Florida. The Puerto
Rican utility (used to be called "Fuentes Fluviales" due to the
use of some hydro power but now called "Autoridad de Energia
Electrica") gets a portion of its power from dams but most of it
has always been from fossil fuel power plants. You could
partially get around that with solar water heaters that did not
directly generate electricity but you could NOT put solar panels
or wind generators on your property. That has changed but still,
and illogically, fossil fuel power still holds sway there. The
bought and paid for politicians have passed laws to destroy
sections of biomes for the installment of an LNG port and
pipelines through tropical rain forests.
The fossil fuelers never stop 'doing what they do'. The Puerto
Ricans are waking up rather slowly to this suicidal reality
which is destroying their environment.
Expect the fossil fuelers in Florida and elsewhere to continue
to buy politicians that lack ethics and common sense in order to
put back door penalties on citizens who contribute to the Demand
Destruction of purchased electrical energy from the Profit over
Planet utilities.
HOW? By making up building codes that designate electrical power
installations with solar panels and/or wind generators as fire
hazards or some other special code category that "requires" a
special permit, an annual "inspection" by the utility (which
charges a "reasonable" fee, of course - LOL!) and so on.
Bureaucrats can be quite imaginative at inventing ways to fleece
you while babying their fossil fuel friends.
In short, they invent, out of whole cloth, all kinds of costly
obstacles to keep we-the-people form profiting from Renewable
Energy in order to preserve the profit over people and planet
polluting thievery.
Do your part. Spread the word about this mens rea modus operandi
of the utilities. The more people know, the harder it will be
for these criminals to buy your politicians. We can't make them
acquire a conscience but we CAN make bribing our elected
officials too costly for them.
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/12/whats-really-at-stake-in-the-florida-solar-battle#comment-138184
#Post#: 2391--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: December 16, 2014, 9:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=knarf link=topic=3282.msg61635#msg61635
date=1418597669]
HTML http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/new-era-of-cheap-oil-will-destroy-green-revolution-9922217.html
HTML http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/new-era-of-cheap-oil-will-destroy-green-revolution-9922217.html
[/quote]
That was the plan back in 1980. It worked. :( The Dirty energy
profit over planet polluters are one DIRTY trick ponies.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
They
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/> just DO what they
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gifDO.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp
I don't think it will work this time BECAUSE:
1) Many people are on to the fossil fuel FLEECE THE PEOPLE for
PROFIT MO with a 100 year track record.
2) The Orwellian Media will not be able to downplay the
environmental EFFECTS
(
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-anime-034.gif
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-034.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.4smileys.com/smileys/seasons-smileys/storm.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/desertsmile.gif
HTML http://s15.rimg.inf
o/dcda0e08e538cb37431314e6bd49279b.gif[img
width=200
height=100]
HTML http://dl2.glitter-graphics.net/pub/722/722242dwt3vpq0qd.gif[/img]<br
/>
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb050.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared002.gif)
of
fossil fuel and nuclear power DIRTY energy.
[quote][color=navy]Fuel Costs
Petroleum products raise environmental red flags even before
they are burned. Extracting them from the earth is an
energy-intensive process that can damage local ecosystems.
Shipping fuels can also consume a lot of energy, and creates an
occasional environmental disaster such as an oil spill. As world
demand rises, and unconventional fuel sources, such as oil
sands, become more economically viable, the ecological impacts
of petroleum extraction might also increase dramatically. That’s
one more reason why fuel efficiency is so important.
Air Quality
Vehicles are America’s biggest air quality compromisers,
producing about one-third of all U.S. air pollution. The smog,
carbon monoxide, and other toxins emitted by vehicles are
especially troubling because they leave tailpipes at street
level, where humans breathe the polluted air directly into their
lungs. That can make auto emissions an even more immediate
health concern than toxins emitted high in the sky by industrial
smokestacks.
HTML http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/buying-guides/car/environmental-impact/
HTML http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/buying-guides/car/environmental-impact/[/quote]
[font=arial black]But they will try
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif.[/font]
[move][I][font=impact]The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate
Trashing CRIME,[COLOR=BROWN] but since they have ALWAYS BEEN
liars
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif<br
/>and conscience free crooks , they are trying to AVOID
[/color] DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE! Don't let
them get away with it! Pass it on!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif[/font][/I][/move]
#Post#: 2468--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: December 28, 2014, 5:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To be watched in the sequence given below. If a clip starts in
the middle, please stop and take it back to the beginning of
each short clip for the full impact of what we are dealing with
when we mistakenly believe certain people can be reasoned with.
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/lennon-not-5
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/lennon-not-5
(one minute)
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/lennon-not-4
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/lennon-not-4
(17 seconds)
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/lennon-not-2
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/lennon-not-2
(one minute)
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/lennon-not-1
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/lennon-not-1
(one minute)
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/lennon-not-3
HTML http://viewrz.com/video/lennon-not-3
Six minutes on the
Industrial (ruthlessness = "virtue") Psychopath
Where a lot of people are dying in "accidents", you will
probably find a psychopath, or 100, setting up the "equation"
for said "Accidents".
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb050.gif
[quote]North Dakota reported the highest incidence
ofwork-related fatalities ...[/quote]
Oil boom and fracking cause spike in energy industry workplace
deaths
Vehicle-related incidents one of key risks ;) :evil4:
Agelbert NOTE: The article DOES NOT say what the slightly less
than HALF of the FRACKING NON vehicle driving fatalities was
caused by...
I wonder why the FOCUS on driving just because it is slightly
over half. Were the non-driving deaths from chewing guar gum
lubricating fluid thickener?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1730.gif
Only the
MKing Fracker Bosses know.
And they aren't telling. It's all those silly OSHA regulations
that get in the way of BIDNESS and PROFIT. Where there is SMOKE,
there is PSYCHOPATHIC FIRE!
HTML http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20140706/NEWS08/307069990
HTML http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20140706/NEWS08/307069990
#Post#: 2486--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: January 2, 2015, 3:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What Does $60 Oil Mean for the Biofuel Industry? ???
Oil prices in the 60s — what does that mean for the global
economy, energy markets, and alternative fuels in the short-term
and long-term?
HTML http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2015/01/what-does-60-oil-mean-for-the-biofuel-industry#comment-138847
Brian Donovan
January 2, 2015
Oil is cheap because of dumping, and all other energy sources
should sue the gov to put a tariff on it.
Oil is cheap because the govs give fossils massive breaks. Again
that goes against the trade agreements the USA has signed.
Put a tax on fossils, or the fossils industry will dump, as they
have done everything the renewable industry looked serious. Then
wait a year or tow for all the renewable plans to die, and raise
the price again. How many times will we fall for this?
A. G. Gelbert
January 2, 2015
Brian Donovan is 100% RIGHT!
I was there in the 1980's and watched Big Oil STRANGLE Renewable
Energy. They are trying to do it again.
And as to game theory, that is one of the most logic free
exercises in evolutionary dead end predator thinking (see Wall
Street creative destruction) that our country has ever been
cursed with. The RAND corporation, where this gem of
"mathematical" justification for conscience free behavior was
hatched, is no friend of the people. Game Theory is based on the
rather convenient predatory wishful thinking that, in nature,
cooperation is merely a tool to be used ONLY for the purpose of
making some alliance with a competitor that you hope to crush.
Game theory is all about crushing, stomping and destroying the
competition in a thoroughly WARPED (see Spencer) interpretation
of the "survival of the fittest" meme.
Darwin himself said that altruistic, caring and cooperative
behavior are evolutionary advantages, not tools of guile for
predatory victories:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWs6bf7tvI&feature=player_embedded
All this "apex predator" business is not a reflection of how
most of nature works.
Even a brief look at the trophic pyramid shows you that the
living biomass of the (100% NON-predatory) base of the pyramid
,which underlies all of the consumers (plant eaters) and tropic
levels above (of which a portion are predators.) is at least 10
times larger than all the biomass above. That is, the
overwhelming majority of successful life forms on this planet
are autotrophic ( many of them photosynthetic). And that is
thermodynamically necessary because energy is lost as each
trophic level above eats from the one below. That is the REAL
math that proves Game Theory is certainly not based on the real
world.
Autotrophs are not predators. Game theory is based on the
mistaken premise that ALL LIFE is in a competitive struggle of
predation. The sun is not prey. Most life is cooperative as now
has been discovered through scientific study of multiple
combinations of three (and more) way symbiotic cooperation
between radically different species.
Therefore game theory is a fascist farce, as is the ridiculously
narrow field of economics that ignores the SCC (social cost of
carbon) when computing the "profitability" and "competiveness"
of fossil fuels in our "market dynamics" (another product of
"everyone is a predator or a prey" Game Theory Bankrupt logic).
Those of you who doubt that the fossil fuel industry is gaming
the price of oil in order to recapture market share from
Renewable Energy, ask yourself this question:
If supply and demand or "market dynamics" had anything
whatsoever to do with the price of oil tanking, then the Demand
Destruction from Renewable Energy (and other factors listed in
the article) would argue for a shift in the investment strategy
of big oil from spending 100's of millions a year on new
exploration of oil and gas to Renewable Energy research and
development and installation. Also, Oil Tanker stocks would tank
as big oil began to move away from the transport of massive
amounts of crude.
But, they are doing EXACTLY THE REVERSE! Big oil is doubling
down on oil and gas exploration. In the last month there has
been a bottom feeding bonanza going in in stocks of oil tanker
corporations and oil and gas exploration corporations.
The only logical explanation is that big oil expects a massive
rise in the price of oil sometime SOON in the future, regardless
of the $70 2017 futures contracts you mentioned in your article.
There are other derivative bets that hide this market cornering
skullduggery by big oil from "the markets".
Here's a small sample of the "illogical" bottom feeding going on
that, on the surface, makes no sense from everything you wrote
about game theory, markets and supply and demand. It ONLY makes
sense if a coordinated effort to recapture market share through
a price war is what is ACTUALLY going on.
Bottom Feeding Bonanza;
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-171214193044.png[/img]
December 17, 2014
Swift Energy Company SFY 4.07 +1.09 (36.58%) 163.18M
Swift Energy Company is engaged in developing, exploring,
acquiring, and operating oil and natural gas properties, with a
focus on oil and natural gas reserves in Texas as well as
onshore and in the inland waters of Louisiana.
Energy XXI Ltd EXXI 3.23 +0.63 (24.23%) 292.47M
Energy XXI Ltd, formerly Energy XXI (Bermuda) Limited, is an
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production
company with operations focused in the United States Gulf Coast
and the Gulf of Mexico. The Company is engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development and operation of oil and
natural gas properties onshore in Louisiana and Texas and
offshore in the Gulf of Mexico
Comstock Resources Inc CRK 6.85 +1.31 (23.65%) 279.00M
Comstock Resources Inc (Comstock) is engaged in the acquisition,
development, production and exploration of oil and natural gas.
The Company’s oil and gas operations are concentrated in East
Texas/North Louisiana, South Texas and West Texas.
Approach Resources Inc. AREX 5.69 +1.01 (21.58%) 188.09M
Approach Resources Inc., is an independent energy company
engaged in the exploration, development, production and
acquisition of oil and gas properties. The Company focuses on
oil and gas reserves in oil shale and tight gas sands in the
Midland Basin of the greater Permian Basin in West Texas, where
it leases approximately 148,000 net acres. The Company’s
drilling targets include the Clearfork, Wolfcamp shale, Canyon
Sands, Strawn and Ellenburger zones. It refers to the Clearfork
and Wolfcamp zones together as the Wolffork, and its development
project in the Permian Basin as Project Pangea, which includes
the northwestern portion of Project Pangea that it refers to as
Pangea West. [b]As of December 31, 2012, it owned and operated
594 producing oil and gas wells in the Permian Basin, and had an
estimated 2,983 identified drilling and recompletion locations,
of which 359 were proved.
SM Energy Co SM 38.22 +(21.10%) 2.45B
SM Energy Company (SM Energy) is an independent energy company.
The Company is engaged in the acquisition, exploration,
development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and
natural gas liquids (referred to as oil, gas, and NGLs) in
onshore North America. The Company’s operations are focused on
five operating areas in the onshore United States.
December 19, 2014
Basic Energy Services BAS 8.07 +1.71 (26.89%) Market Cap 317.99M
Basic Energy Services, Inc., provides a range of well site
services to oil and natural gas drilling and producing
companies, including completion and remedial services, fluid
services, well servicing and contract drilling. The Company’s
operations are managed regionally and are concentrated in the
United States onshore oil and natural gas producing regions
located in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas,
Louisiana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Montana, West
Virginia and Pennsylvania. The Company’s segments include
Completion and Remedial Services, Fluid Services, Well
Servicing, and Contract Drilling. In April 2014, Basic Energy
Services Inc sold its four inland barge workover rigs, and
related equipment. In September 2014, Basic Energy Services Inc
completes acquisition of Pioneer Fishing and Rental, a division
of Pioneer Energy Services.
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-171214200533.png[/img]<br
/>
Market "dynamics"? I don't think so. Try Big Oil HISTORY of
market cornering skullduggery for the past century or so. >:(
#Post#: 2540--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Fossil Fuel Skulldugggery
By: AGelbert Date: January 12, 2015, 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=640
height=320]
HTML http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8179/7961423976_9939afc711_m.jpg[/img]
[quote]You want us doing race track patterns for HOW LONG!!!!?
Can I tell my wife how long we will be away? Right. I didn't
think so.[/quote]
You all saw the market and fossil fuel based energy tank along
with the price of crude AGAIN today. What you didn't see was
MORE PROOF that big oil does not plan to "go away". They plan to
burn/sell every gallon of the fossil fuels they have access to.
So what do they do if the price isn't "right"? They STORE IT
here, there and everywhere they can until their low price HEAD
FAKE is over and they have recaptured their lost market share
(see price war to kill renewable energy).
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif
Do you know what costs to store crude in a giant oil tanker
ship? A LOT! It runs about $25,000 a DAY! :o But big oil
doesn't want to keep selling oil cheap. They want to address the
demand destruction going on by artificially CUTTING the supply.
This hanky panky is accomplished by renting oil tankers and
keeping them away from land for weeks or months at time
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif(like
they did in
the 1970's - they had oil tankers doing race track patterns in
the middle of the Atlantic until the prices went to the moon! -
Google it! - Note: Oil tankers are unstable in open ocean when
they are not under way. They have to keep moving. So, if they
don't want to go anywhere for a few days or weeks or months,
they do race track patterns.)
TOP Gainers (% price change) Last Trade
Change Mkt Cap
Frontline Ltd. FRO (17.51%) 4.63
+0.69 2.84B
[quote]
NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Shares of the world's largest oil tanker
shipping company Frontline (FRO) surged 18.74% to $4.68 in
morning trading Monday after a Bloomberg report late last week
that plunging oil prices could stimulate demand for oil tankers
to store cargoes. [/quote]
HTML http://www.thestreet.com/story/13007734/1/frontline-fro-stock-surges-today-on-falling-oil-prices.html
HTML http://www.thestreet.com/story/13007734/1/frontline-fro-stock-surges-today-on-falling-oil-prices.html
HTML https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/img/tankers.gif
The next time a fossil fueler talks NONSENSE about "supply and
demand", tell him to stick his game theory bullshit where the
sun don't shine!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page