Monday, March 14, 2011

Why Solar and Wind aren't "feasible" business models (if you crave centralized, concentrated wealth)

"The most inexpensive way to meet your Seismic Qualification is to lie. The industry does it all the time. The government team I worked with caught them once, in 1988, at the Shoreham plant in New York. Correcting the SQ problem at Shoreham would have cost a cool billion, so engineers were told to change the tests from 'failed' to 'passed.'"*

There is no need to lie about the safety of your wind or solar plant. And don't believe the lie of "Solar and Wind are not economically viable" They aren't subsidized at the level of nukes and fossil fuel, and the cost of accidents, like the BP spill (and others!) and nuke accidents are not factored in to the cost analysis. Nor are the health costs caused by the public's exposure to the fuels and their waste products, as part of SOP.

Gee, why would businessmen spend so much money to represent dangerous stuff as more cost effective than clean stuff, to the public through the media, and to our politicians through lobbying? The "Come-back".

Big people with big pockets lobby for government funds for making themselves *more* money. Sustainable by definition has no come-back. Once you have built the green energy device, fuel is forever free, nothing left to sell to people. Who will lobby for free fuel? The people with the money to successfully lobby energy policy are the overlords looking for the come-back. They push dirty fuels instead of crack or smack, but they are just as despicable as drug lords, and just as dangerous.

The dangerous energy industries *also* fight the progress of Green development with pro-dirty propaganda. With their come-back money they buy up media. (MSNBC = GE = nukes... Fox = Prince Al Waleed = Saudi Arabia = petroleum and methane.) And they become sponsors everywhere else. How are you going to make money if you annoy your sponsors by not telling your audience how indispensable their dangerous products are? Or by not ignoring the fact that their products get so much more tax payer support than their Green competition? Or that externalized costs are not factored into the viability equation. What is an externalized cost?

In NC hog farmers are allowed by law to put the hog waste into lagoons, rather than paying for removal or processing. That means very low costs for the hog producers, but for all of their neighbors for miles around? Every breath they take and and every thing they drink or eat tastes like pig shit. So these people pay the price for our cheap McDonalds and Subway bacon. Externalized cost for the producer, still existent for the neighbors. Want to buy a house near a hog farm in NC? Neither does anyone else. So the devaluation of their real estate value is an additional cost, paid for by the neighbors, not by bacon munchers.

Externalized costs for energy production run rampant. Some costs are deferred legally, because they have used their comeback money to influence law makers and to influence public opinion. But when that doesn't work they externalize costs with fraud, like lies and illegal dumping. The burden then lies on the public to sue to recover their losses (like in the case of BP in the Gulf) These legal cost are also not factored into the final cost analysis of dangerous vs. green

To implement green works, we have to do far more than just going to the federal government and asking or even demanding. The energy overlords bought up our politicians with their come back money long ago. Democracy can work outside the government. We have to start our own collectives locally with out large government support. We have to form non profits and build our own green power. We have to work with our most local governments and funds (Our town put solar panels all over our new high school and will be covering the middle school next.) The Federal government is all but lost to us on this issue. Locally, it is easy to make the case for green. It's a no-brainer. The Fed will only follow once they see we've pretty much solved the problem without them.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

James O'Keefe, MSM sock puppet

Evening news lead: James O'Keefe. Remember by choosing this story the MSM gives him credence. James O'Keefe is in fact a sock puppet for the MSM who, to maintain creditability must refrain from such tactics as his, yet gleefully air his fraudulent stories front and center.