|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Most of you kids are too young to remember Carter, I'm old enough but barely.
The Hallmark of his presidency was the Iran hostage crisis, gas lines, double digit inflation, and his incompetence at dealing with just about any major issue.
Anyways no need to harp on his presidency, he did his bit and gave us 12 years of Republican presidents.
But I draw the line at this....
Jimmy, who was apparently out of the loop even when he was president, apparently wants to break up the US alliance with GB over the war on terror. You know there is something 'special' about the president. The office itself commands respect and if ANYONE knows how hard it is to be president it should be Carter who had such a hard time.
He even admits he has no real knowledge of what is going on when he says
So he doesn't know whats going on yet feels the need, as an ex-president, to verbally attack our strongest ally?
I think I agree with his mother ...
Sometimes, when I look at my children, I say to myself ~~"Lillian, you should have remained a virgin." -- Lillian Carter (mother of Jimmy Carter)
|
I invite you to peruse the following evidence that the betrayal of the economic wellbeing and the present national security of the US, was intentionally planned and implemented,, by the politicians and the party that you support, despite the vision, planning, legislation, and appropriations of funds, by the very former president who you are on display here, mocking, apparently because you are unaware of the details of the "history", posted arleady on this thread, and...... at this link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108616 and here:
Quote:
Arco Solar, Solarex Corp (NAICS: 333414, 333611 ) , SOLAREX CORP, STANDARD OIL CO (INDIANA)
Lueck, Thomas J.
New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 16, 1983. pg. A.18
New York Times Company Oct 16, 1983
The Sun, long a source of power in mythology, may soon be an actual source of household electricity - at least in bright places like America's Sun Belt. But some of the people working to develop the cells that generate electricity from sunlight are concerned that the oil business is controlling more and more of the solar industry.
This trend was highlighted last month when the Standard Oil Company of Indiana purchased Solarex, a Rockville, Md., company that last year ranked as the second largest United States manufacturer of photovoltaic cells. Arco Solar, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Atlantic Richfield Company, was the largest. Ranking third was the Solar Power Corporation, owned by Exxon.
<b>''Virtually all of the photovoltaics industry is owned by Big Oil,'' said Scott Sklar, political director for the Solar Lobby</b>, an organization that advocates expanding development of solar technology. ''And the problem with that is these huge corporations don't have the kind of commitment you find in small innovative companies.'' Some consumer groups profess even greater worries about the oil industry's motives. <b>''The major oils see solar power as a competing source of energy, and they want to control it and slow it down,''</b> said Edwin Rothchild, a spokesman for the Citizen Energy Labor Coalition, another lobbying organization. But many experts in alternative energy research maintain that, if not for large investments by the oil companies, photovoltaic development would be grinding to a halt. ''If the oil companies are a menace, they are the most benevolent menace you could find, because nobody else seems willing to spend a dime,'' said Mitchell Diamond, an energy analyst for Booz Allen and Hamilton, Inc., a consulting firm.
Solarex, which was formed in 1973, lost $10 million in 1982. John Corsi, its president, said the company had been aggressively but unsuccessfully seeking a fresh infusion of cash from outside sources since March. He added that a merger with Amoco, which already held 35 percent of Solarex's stock, became the only alternative. Amoco, which paid $20 a share for a piece of Solarex in 1982, acquired the 65 percent of the company's shares it did not already own last month for only $2.50 a share, or a total of $12.2 million.
So far, the photovoltaic cells introduced to the world market are producing a minuscule amount of power compared to other electrical generating equipment. Mr. Diamond estimated sales of photovoltaic cells in 1982 at $90 million, an increase of 180 percent in two years. But he said these devices were capable of generating a total of only 9 megawatts of electricity, compared to the more than 500 megawatts generated by a single conventional power plant.
''We remain convinced that we can be competitive with coal-fired plants in the Sun Belt by 1990,'' said James H. Caldwell, senior vice president for manufacturing and research at Arco Solar. Atlantic Richfield does not disclose the financial status of its solar company, and Mr. Caldwell declined to say if the company has been profitable or how much money it is spending on research and development.
As the largest manufacturer of photovoltaic cells, Arco Solar specializes in a cell designed to recharge batteries. Other American companies are selling larger cells designed to generate power in remote locations not served by other sources of electricity, such as farms and villages in developing countries. Some Japanese companies, meanwhile, have begun marketing pocket calculators and digital watches powered by tiny cells.
Despite his own company's goals, Mr. Caldwell acknowledged that others in the field may be forced to scale down. The most important products of the industry ''will require a very high level of investment, and people aren't exactly knocking down doors to invest'' he said.
<h3>Throughout most of the 1970's, the Federal Government functioned as one of the largest sources of photovoltaic research money. Those funds have been sharply reduced. In 1980, the Department of Energy administered $797 million in research and development grants for renewable energy projects. This year, those grants have fallen to $262 million.
Several major corporations outside the oil industry have either withdrawn from photovoltaic research or put it on the back burner.</h3> The RCA Corporation, which was a leader in research aimed at the most advanced forms of photovoltaic cells, sold its technology to Solarex earlier this year for an undisclosed price. Texas Instruments Corporation, which spent $20 million of its own and Federal money on a major photovoltaics research project for which many experts held high hopes, suspended work in the area two weeks ago.
Despite successful initial results of the project, Texas Instruments ''decided not to spend the $100 million that would be needed over the next four years'' to develop manufacturing techniques for its photovoltaic cells, said Richard Purdue, a company spokesman. Such decisions are what lead observers of the industry to say that a continued infusion of cash by the oil companies is essential.
At Solarex, Mr. Corsi said it will take ''very, very deep pockets to stay ahead of photovoltaics technology; we are fortunate that the oil companies are standing in.''
|
Quote:
Arco Solar, Pacific Gas & Electric Co (NAICS: 221122, Sic:4931, Duns:00-691-2877 )
BLAKESLEE, SANDRA
CALIFORNIA VALLEY, Calif., Dec. 1
New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Dec 4, 1983. pg. A.88
A large solar energy plant began partial operation here this week as one of hundreds of projects in California's drive to develop alternative energy sources. Some people expect such sources to supply 10 percent of the state's power needs by the end of this decade.
Unfazed by stable oil prices and the higher costs of exotic energy, California is acting to transform wind, sunlight, rice chaff, underground steam, falling water and even cow manure into electricity consumers can afford.
The newest project is a 6.5-megawatt photovoltaic plant that converts sunlight directly into electricity, which is expected to supply 2,000 homes when it is completed next year. It is being built by Arco Solar for the purpose of selling electricity to the Pacific Gas and Electric utility.
The plant, near the San Andreas earthquake fault, is often praised as physically safe and environmentally sound. Yet the technology is fundamentally unproved. Questions of long-term reliability, cost reduction and compatability with conventional utility systems have not been answered.
Moreover, photovoltaics, a technology that makes electricity without combustion or heat, is one of the most expensive new energy forms. The new plant's cost, which the company keeps secret, is believed to be astronomical.
Nevertheless, the project illustrates the state's strategy for developing new energy sources. California will soon have four photovoltaic plants that are expected to benefit all the interest groups involved: consumers, politicians, regulators, utilities and manufacturers. Coal and Atom Plants Opposed
The reason, according to energy experts around the country, is California's unusual social and regulatory climate. With strong public opposition to coal-burning and nuclear power plants, utilities here are highly dependent on imported oil and natural gas. As an alternative, utility regulators have pushed the renewable energy sources such as wind, water and sunlight.
In the late 1970's the state declared it would produce 10 percent of all its power from renewable sources by 1990, said John Quinley of the California Public Utilities Commission. ''We will reach our goal well before the end of the decade,'' he said in an interview.
Today, 2,500 megawatts, or about 5 percent of the state's power supply, is generated by innovative systems such as miniature dams; geothermal, solar and wind methods, and cogeneration, which captures waste heat. Five years ago such sources did not exist.
California's benign weather has helped develop many of these sources. But such technologies can be used in many other states, experts say.
California's energy plan, begun when Edmund G. Brown Jr. was Governor and carried on by his successor, George Deukmejian, has three key elements: generous tax credits, tough regulation and public popularity.
These elements have prompted extensive business investment in renewable energy, made utilities flexible and led politicians to support the program even through recent budget difficulties.
The new plant here shows how each California interest group calculates ''what's in it for me?'' and then joins the effort to build solar plants.
Utilities benefit, according to the chairman of Pacific Gas and Electric, Frederick Mielke, because they can postpone building new power plants.
Like other alternative power sources, the new solar plant is financed privately, and electricity produced is purchased by the utility at a cost equivalent to burning oil. In California that is now up to 8 cents a kilowatt hour.
By purchasing electricity from such independent, third-party producers, ''we feel we will cut our need to build new capacity by 38 percent'' over the next 10 years, Mr. Mielke said in a telephone interview.
Counting today's hydroelectric and geothermal sources, he said, the utility generates more than half its power from renewable sources. Some of these sources are intermittent since they are affected by weather. But he said, ''We can always store oil and gas and use them as backup to our renewables.'' Made Competitive by Tax Credits
Businessmen who help develop the new energy sources come out ahead because of tax credits. Conventional energy enjoys enormous subsidies, said Scott Sklar, director of the Solar Lobby in Washington, D.C. Tax credits allow solar and other renewable sources to compete.
''Tax credits make wind power competitive with traditional grid power,'' said William Murray of Strategies Unlimited, an energy consulting firm in Mountain View, Calif. ''Photovoltaics moves in pretty close.''
The advantage to a company such as Arco Solar, an Atlantic Richfield subsidiary that manufactures solar panels and designed the new plant, is that it can cut its unit production costs because of the increases in output.
A Federal law recently upheld by the Supreme Court requires utilities to pay third-party producers as much as would be paid for power from sources it avoided using, which here means those of oil and gas. Thus Arco's photovoltaic plant is economical in California but would not be in states using cheap coal.
Utility regulators, who in recent years fined California utilities millions of dollars for not developing renewable energy sources fast enough, are pretty happy these days, said Mr. Quinley of the Public Utilities Commission.
''Our job is to protect rate payers,'' he said. When a utility avoids spending money to build a plant, the ratepayer benefits.
The third-party plants are limited by law to producing no more than 80 megawatts, which is low in contrast to the capacity of fossil-fuel plants. But the private producers like the photovoltaic plant can be developed quickly, he said, to meet California's slowly growing demand for new power. Taxpayers Seen Benefiting
The plant, situated 50 miles from Pacific Gas and Electric's 2,190-megawatt Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, will be completed in less than a year, Mr. Quinley said, and eventually its peak generating capacity will rise from 6.5 to 16.5 megawatts. <h3>The nuclear plant, begun in 1968, is still not operating.</h3>
California's taxpayers will benefit from the photovoltaic plant in several ways, said Paul Maycock, president of Photovoltaic Energy Systems, a consulting firm in Alexandria, Va.
Taxpayers do bear a current burden in subsidizing the plant, he said. But they get back jobs because half all photovoltaic panels are now made in California. They also get energy security as less oil is imported and lower future costs for the solar devices.
''We figure the taxes workers in the photovolatic industry will pay over the next 10 years will equal the tax credits,'' Mr. Maycock said.
Finally, elected officials in California win votes by supporting solar projects, according to many polls. In July the Legislature extended the tax credit three years despite a budget crisis that cut other popular programs.
From 300 to 400 independent power projects are now under way, Mr. Quinley said. A mountain pass near San Francisco has more than 700 wind machines. Agricultural wastes are being turned into electricity, and animal feedlots turn manure into fuel.
Thus, he said, the state is both ''nickle and diming'' itself toward energy independence and developing expensive sources such as solar power.
|
<b>By the way, you are still supporting the traitorous menace perpetrated on the American people, and on the rest of western civilization, carried out now by former oil "biz" executives, Bush, and the former ceo of the largest oil services corp in the world, stock symbol, "HAL", your VP, Dick Cheney.</b>
HAL quadrupled in price, from the level where it traded on the NYSE in early 2003, on the eve of the Iraqi invasion, and it's peak, ealier this year......
Would it be too much of a "mind fuck" to consider that Carter met the US growing dependence on foreign oil, "head on", drafting a 3 legged plan of conservation and price deregulation, strategic reserve stockpiling, and research, public funding,and tax credits to promote new and alternative energy resources, that was prescient enough to avoid the negative effects on progress that swings in free market pricing. and the natural tendency of wealthy competitors of alternative energy to buy up the fledgling industry and stifle it's growth?
Is it possible, at all, for you to consider that <b>the opposite</b> of what you believe, what you stand behind politically, is most likely more accurate......that Carter put our country on the correct path, towards balanced trade, foreign energy independence, national security that doesn't depend on cronyism from the money and influence of the oil and defense industries, and the "politics of fear" that is required to attract votes and to blind the electorate as they are made less safe and less prosperous, mired in astronomical debt? Can you not even suspect that this is the legacy of Reagan and the two Bush's? The proof is in what happened to alternative energy and the program of tax credits and government funded research that Carter persuaded the congress to pass and to fund. The treasury debt numbers show which administrations cut the taxes on the rich and domestic spending, while they continued to grow the government and accumulate the debt, and which presidential administrations reversed the growth of debt, slowed military spending, enjoyed better foreign relations with other nations, operated in a more open and accountable manner with the electorate, and stifled oil industry profits, while protecting the environment and public land, lessened the poverty rate, and the number of Americans without health insurance.
Does it puzzle you at all, that Reagan could destroy Carter's energy reform initiatives, end the tax credits that were vital and offered pay back in so many ways....from new employment in the alternative energy industry, to savings in military spending for a nation relieved of the dependence on foreign oil, and the cost, that we've experience, avoidably for 20 years? Does the initiation of a period of tax cutting and military spending, all to insure that the "fear" message would enrich the defense industry and attract the votes, that caused a 12 year federal borrowing "spree", that increased the treasury debt, by a factor of 4-1/2 times, the existing debt as Carter's single term ended, give you pause? Hasn't the last six years, going from reduced oil industry profits, elimination of deficit spending, reduced military spending, to the opposite.....and a new, six year deficit of $2750 billion, cause you any doubt?
Can you consider that former oil industry executives, as US president and Vice president, and the cronyism and influence of multi national oil corps. that they've brought into our government with them, are a cancer on the fiscal health or our nation, on our security, and on our legacy to our children....a pox on all of our houses, that we just got through enduring, as recently as in 1993, and here it is again?
If the newly minted treasury debt, the oil and defense industry profits, the message of fear, are not all a repeat of the post Carter period in America, than what are they? How stupid do you think we are? We've opposed the influence, money, and the agenda of "big oil", and of the defense industry, on our governance, and on the quality of our lives, since high school, et tu? |