Your Questions About Green Living

Why does Obama’s clean energy rely on electricity generated by coal plants?

There seems to be a little secret that no one is talking about. It’s the move to electric energy vehicles.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204348804574402673476299290.html

Of course the “hybrids” rely on gasoline engines to generate electricity (and pollution) but the purely electric vehicles require a battery charge. That charged comes from our electric grid. And that electricity is generated by coal fired plants for the majority of America’s energy.

Obama promised to bankrupt the coal plants. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

With cap and trade, the next least costly way to generate electricity is with natural gas. By doing so, it drives up the cost of natural gas and increases our heating bills tremendously. Heating oil is already going to consume 2% of its power from soybeans which will further strain domestic crop production for food and the alternative of waste materials makes that small 2% increase heating oil costs 30% to 50%.

The truth is that we need nuclear energy plants desperately. While the rest of the world hasn’t been hampered by the laws the Democrats imposed on Nuclear Plant regulations, we have fell way behind the rest of the world. 80% of France’s electrical energy is derived from Nuclear power plants while only 19% of US relies on nuclear energy.

Obama’s solution is a federal loan guarantees to companies going through the regulation process. IOW, if they don’t make it through the regulation process Uncle Sam picks up the cost of the work they have done up until that point. While many think there were laws against nuclear power plants that was not the case. After 3 mile island the Democrats made regulations so stiff that no company was willing to risk an investment to only find out they couldn’t pass the regulations. This is why we haven’t had a new nuclear plant in 30 years. It worked the same way Obama is going to bankrupt the coal plants he described in his video above.

By using a loan, at any point congress decides to avoid nuclear energy they can simply enforce their regulations, the company will default on their loan and the government will pick up the tab. No one is the wiser and most likely the news will simply say, “ABC Corporation pulled out of the Nuclear Plant deal.”

So far Obama has only offered $8 Billion in loans for two plants and then ironically canceled the waste dump near Las Vegas by withdrawing the Energy Department’s license application for the proposed dump. These mixed messages are far from Nuclear power plant development, when Senator Graham proposed sufficient loans to build 60 additional nuclear reactors and while earlier the Lieberman-led nuclear bill included a $100 billion boost for the federal loan guarantee program, as well as additional regulatory risk insurance.
====
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473724099542430.html
===========
Lincoln6, get a clue. Every gas well is drilled, contained and shipped by an oil company. In fact they have to be drilled much deeper.

Oil companies will be the “energy” companies of the future, regardless the fuel. Just like Nikon not going out of business when 35MM film died.

Shell has a number of “true” solar factories, the latest one being a factory that can produce 1 GigaWatt of Solar Panels every year… power of a small nuclear power plant.

Capitalism is what generates the future… Socialism, such as Obama delivers doesn’t have enough money or momentum. They simply are throwing money at the solar companies that are generating heat to power steam to power generators. Terribly inefficient and without a future.
Shell has already moved solar cells two magnitudes beyond the common silicon cells, and one magnitude beyond cadmium telluride… each magnitude steps are considerably cheaper to make as well. Obama is just creating busy work since capitalism drives technology and he knows it… he would just be reinventing the wheel and having his socialism compete with the big oil companies that isn’t sustainable.

But guess what… Shell will still produce the lubricants that Obama will need with his “steam machine” but they are not so stupid to follow that path as they created electricity directly from solar energy.

What is Harper doing with our money? Is green money all green? Oh Canada!?

Is green designated money really going to green projects or infrastructure and other things that should be paid for from other sources?

Check in your area, local news, talk to your officials and read the fine print.

Make sure you know what green funds should be used forby common definiton! Examples;investing in alternative energy, green buildings, innovation and so on.

Does the process that approve the spending of these funds meet those criteria?

How are these gifts of moneies being promoted and does the PR match the use of the money. Example, city name…gets green funding! To go to green projects! then it goes to infrastructure with a token amount to a something that could be considered moderate green innitiative.

I am seeing some things are being approved that are just normal stuff that should be covered by municipalities.
This happened in our community 2007.

Why do some people still love the Clintons?

The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
– Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
– Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
– Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
– Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
– First president sued for sexual harassment.
– First president accused of rape.
– First first lady to come under criminal investigation
– Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
– First president to establish a legal defense fund.

“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton – June 28, 2004, in San Francisco at a Democrat Party fundraiser)

“I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence.” (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton – February 2, 2007, at DNC Winter Meeting – regarding profits earned by oil companies, which are not [yet] owned by the government)

“As president I know I can’t kill, jail or occupy every nation we don’t agree with and I cannot just wish that all the terrorists be wiped off the face of the Earth” (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton – February 10, 2007, at a campaign appearance in New Hampshire)

“We’re going to change the way we finance the system by taking away money from people who are doing well now” — (Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — March 24, 2007, at a health care forum in Las Vegas)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070728/ap_o…
why do libs march like russains
why do libs march like russains

Biochemistry, Chemistry, or Environmental Studies?

Hello wise people. With all this excitement and news about global warming and the energy crisis, I decided that it would be great to go into a field regarding alternative energy source development. I’m graduating high school in a few weeks, and I’ll be going to college where I’ll eventually have to decide what to focus my studies on. (BC 2012!! Go Eagles!) At first, I thought that I should major in Environmental Studies, but I want to work on developing new energy sources, so I thought why not major in Chemistry and minor in Enviro. Then I talked to my Research in Molecular Biology teacher, and he told me that with just a Chemistry degree, I will not get as many opportunities as with a BioChem degree. So, my question is: if I want to work with alternative energy sources and save Mother Earth, would majoring in BioChem and minoring in Enviro be the best combination? Thanks for all your help!

Biochemistry, Chemistry, or just Environmental Studies?

Hello wise people. With all this excitement and news about global warming and the energy crisis, I decided that it would be great to go into a field regarding alternative energy source development. I’m graduating high school in a few weeks, and I’ll be going to college where I’ll eventually have to decide what to focus my studies on. (BC 2012!! Go Eagles!) At first, I thought that I should major in Environmental Studies, but I want to work on developing new energy sources, so I thought why not major in Chemistry and minor in Enviro. Then I talked to my Research in Molecular Biology teacher, and he told me that with just a Chemistry degree, I will not get as many opportunities as with a BioChem degree. So, my question is: if I want to work with alternative energy sources and save Mother Earth, would majoring in BioChem and minoring in Enviro be the best combination? Thanks for all your help!