Green Jobs (or lack thereof)

sc4ram wrote:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56759.html

From the article: ""I think we ought to do what we can, but it's got to be based on productivity and profit and not just because we're doing a nice thing," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

"A NICE THING"--??? What an uninformed view of an industry that we are BEHIND several European nations on already, because of lack of BIG investment into what is the most reasonable way out of our oil shortage.

A nice thing--still glad I never voted for this guy. He should subscribe to the news from the Apollo Alliance and realize that countries all over the world are joining forces in government and industry coalitions in a planned manner to get ahead of the energy curve, unlike our stop-start, paltry and insufficient lack of investment and focus. We are behind on this, and it is not just a "nice thing"!!!

http://apolloalliance.org/

Im afraid I would have to agree with the old Navy Sky pilot on this one. The Prez has had almost 3 years (2 with contrrol of the House and Senate) and Im afraid I dont know of anybody who has gotton a "green job". The reason there is a energy issue in the first place is our governments ineptness in clearing the obsticles for harvesting our own energy. Instead drilling for Oil and Nat Gas is discouraged, no Nuke plants have been started (there are hundreds of thousands of potential jobs just in these 3 fields alone). Instead the Prez is spending his time having his NRLB come down on Boeing for trying to create jobs in SC simply because the location is not to his liking. With the exception of the tax credits for cars that nobody wants, very little of this has to do with oil. Cash for caulkers, solar and wind are all power grid issues and we use virtually no oil in power grid applications.

All of this junk is a mindless platitude that gives a lofty vision of battery powered cars, solar panels basking in the sun and wind turbins lazily dancing in the breeze. The reality is , nobody wants the cars, the electrical grid couldnt support their recharge if they did (not to mention the grid burns coal), and I havent heard how the expense and disposal of these batteries would be addressed when they had to be replaced.

Solar is uneconomical , it takes at least 4 years for a solar panel to replace the power it took to build it. They have a wear out mechanism and do wear out. (as does anything else that sits in the sun everyday) Not to mention it only works when the sun shines and there is no technology capabile of storing the power at nite.

Wind turbins only work when the wind is blowing (not to mention they kill birds and they are a eyesore) , they (and the electric cars) utilize rare earth materials (which due to US environomental restrictions are mostly mined in China) . China just boycotted these from Japan recently in a fishing rights dispute. If people think that switching this stuff to "green energy" will free us from forgein energy supply they are sadley mistaken.

McCain is right , the govt needs to stay out of this, if the free market demands this stuff it will get developed. It aint capable now and wont be no matter how much of my tax dollars they dump into it.

We have a wealth of newly discovered Nat Gas resources, we could run our cars on it (with no loss of performance) if we needed to . The Pickens Plan wants to harvest it and convert all of the tractor trailers to it (thus getting rid of the diesel fumes), this would eliminate 1/3 of OPEC imports and set up refueling stations we could eventually use in our cars. This would generate boo-coo jobs (many in the rust belt where the economies are really in shambles) . This is solution, where is the Prez? (same place he is for a EUC extension )



another sinippet frrom the articleHoping to an end the reliance on anecdotes, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is working on a first-ever report to quantify the green collar job workforce. It's surveying a list of 333 employment categories, from vineyard workers to steel mill operators and environmental journalists, occupations that meet a two-part definition in which the business produces goods or services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources, or where the workers make the production process more green.

That report doesn't appear to have a deadline. But Obama is unlikely to stop talking about his commitment to the issue in the meantime.

"I wouldn't be surprised if they use the green jobs story in the same way they're using the auto story, as a place where they can tell somewhat of a good story, even if they don't have the fact base to make it really compelling," said McDonald.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56759_Page2.html#ixzz1PUAPXM7B

US shale gas weakening Russian, Iranian petro-power
Houston TX -- Jul 22, 2011

The study concludes that timely development of U.S. shale gas resources will limit the need for the United States to import LNG for at least two to three decades, thereby reducing negative energy-related stress on the U.S. trade deficit and economy.

Rising U.S. natural gas production from shale formations has already played a critical role in weakening Russia's ability to wield an "energy weapon" over its European customers, and this trend will accelerate in the coming decades, according to a new Baker Institute study, "Shale Gas and U.S. National Security."

The study, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, projects that Russia's natural gas market share in Western Europe will decline to as little as 13 percent by 2040, down from 27 percent in 2009.

"The geopolitical repercussions of expanding U.S. shale gas production are going to be enormous," said Amy Myers Jaffe, the Wallace S. Wilson Fellow for Energy Studies and one of the authors of the study.

"By increasing alternative supplies to Europe in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) displaced from the U.S. market, the petro-power of Russia, Venezuela and Iran is faltering on the back of plentiful American natural gas supply."

The study concludes that timely development of U.S. shale gas resources will limit the need for the United States to import LNG for at least two to three decades, thereby reducing negative energy-related stress on the U.S. trade deficit and economy. By creating greater competition among gas suppliers in global markets, shale gas will also lower the cost to average Americans of reducing greenhouse gases as the country moves to lower carbon fuels.

The Baker Institute study dismisses the notion, recently debated in the U.S. media, that the shale gas revolution is a transitory occurrence. The study projects that U.S. shale production will more than quadruple by 2040 from 2010 levels of more than 10 billion cubic feet per day, reaching more than 50 percent of total U.S. natural gas production by the 2030s.

The study incorporates independent scientific and economic literature on shale costs and resources, including assessments by organizations such as the U.S. Geological Survey, the Potential Gas Committee and scholarly peer-reviewed papers of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

"The idea that shale gas is a flash-in-the-pan is simply incorrect," said Kenneth Medlock III, the James A. Baker III and Susan G. Baker Fellow for Energy and Resources Economics and co-author of the study.

"The geologic data on the shale resource is hard science and the innovations that have occurred in the field to make this resource accessible are nothing short of game-changing. In fact, we continue to learn as we progress in this play, and it is vital that we understand and embrace the opportune circumstances that shale resources provide. U.S. policymakers should not get diverted from the real opportunities that responsible development of our domestic shale resources present."

Other findings of the study include that U.S. shale gas will:

+ Reduce competition for LNG supplies from the Middle East and thereby moderate prices and spur greater use of natural gas, an outcome with significant implications for global environmental objectives.

+ Combat the long-term potential monopoly power of a "gas OPEC."

+ Reduce U.S. and Chinese dependence on Middle East natural gas supplies, lowering the incentives for geopolitical and commercial competition between the two largest consuming countries and providing both countries with new opportunities to diversify their energy supply.

+ Reduce Iran's ability to tap energy diplomacy as a means to strengthen its regional power or to buttress its nuclear aspirations.

This is another little known dirty secret of so called "clean" energy production . The article below focus' on the importance or rare earth elements for the production of compact fluorescent bulbs (CFBs) . These "rare earths" are also essential for the production of wind turbins, electric cars, computer componets etc. The workers in China that mine this stuff do it under poor working conditions at best. We can mine most of this stuff in the US but the environmental lobby has successfully stopped any expansion of mining operations for this stuff. Its ironic that there is theoretical support for wind turbins (for ex) as renewable energy and a alternative to forgien oil (which is a mismomer because we do not generate our power from oil) , yet the essential componets of a wind turbine have to be produced in China (with all the liabilities of forgien dependency)



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/China-Consolidates-Grip-on-nytimes-2650144197.html?x=0&.v=1

Wow, these Chicago guys appear to be more corrupt than I even imagined.............


http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-fundraisers-ties-green-firms-federal-cash/story?id=14592626

Too bad there werent more privately funded solar ventrues like this one (without my tax dollars)

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000123210&play=1