MooPig Tech Coroner :: "Renewable Energy"

Pedantic Walk through Development of Land and Renewable Energy
by Pat Darnell  |  Jan 2, 2014  |  Bryan TX

[Picture LINK] Boondoggle

Land development is the key to the future of almost every walk of life. If it goes awry, or starts to cost too much, many institutions feel a dramatic decline. Banks cannot move land they acquire in debt resolutions, or foreclosures. Investment groups cannot get return on their dollars as soon as they planned. Growing families must put off long term investing if suddenly development of land and resources is too expensive.

It turns out the US Government surprisingly provides subsidies for all these kinds of developments, including money to develop new energy sources. But the US Government does not provide subsidies for Environmental Impact Reports.

Reason Foundation - Out of Control Policy Blog and How Federal Regulations Get in the Way of Renewable Energy Development: "A paper recently released by the Mercatus Center, examines the extent in which federal regulations adversely impacted this relatively small scale renewable energy project in Utah. "Although it is tempting to point to one specific regulation as the root cause of today's impediments to small hydro-power development, a federal nexus of regulation is the real problem," the Mercatus Center paper, written by Utah-based authors, states. Even after receiving the stimulus grant (which covered half of the projected $1.4 million dollars needed for the project) the projected benefits from the project will be insufficient to meet its costs.  "

'via Blog this'

Renewable energy may be an idea that is dead on arrival. That is, federal regulations make it near impossible to start up any renewable energy processes. "...Leave it to the federal government to provide billions of dollars in subsidies promoting renewable energy projects, while also requiring municipalities implementing those projects to navigate a federal regulatory web so onerous that it discourages any future renewable energy project undertakings. (Victor Nava. December 19, 2013. LINK) ..."

I remember the 1970's through the 80's, there suddenly appeared "Environmental Impact Reports" requirements for especially land development. Land developing became too expensive for the average developer. The cost of producing an "Environmental Impact Report" added at least an extra half-million dollars to the development costs.

Developers could only manage to break even on their projects with the new regulation. Often the Reports would disclose some sort of environmental obstacle that the developer would have to deal with. Only government jobs could get the backing in these cases. Around Houston land developing was hindered, and many development groups had to "re-group."

In developments today, for instance, " ... Different environmental groups, citizens, and politicians have raised concerns about the potential negative impacts of the Keystone XL project ... " Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Lincoln, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman will issue statements that if regarded add cost to the construction of the XL Tar Sands Pipeline.

CONCLUSION
Government has provided Americans with a two headed ax. It turns out that government subsidies are available for alternative energy start ups, but also there are too many governmental regulations on development of any of those alternatives. Who will straighten this all out?

For the past five years, our Legislature has not done anything to help the boondoggle of dumping subsidy money, then spending that money on its own regulations. The present government would rather dally around with creationism, abortion, and tall tales.

In the comments you might enlighten us to some group who is developing energies and land all the right way in the USA, but to our knowledge this growing impediment to developments is a pedantic walk through an abysmal activity that is wasteful and pointless that only gives the appearance of having value.

____________Reference
http://reason.org/blog/show/how-federal-regulations-get-in-the
http://www.governor.nebraska.gov/news/2011/11/15_pipline.html
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/tarsandssafetyrisks.asp
http://sierranebraska.org/energy/xl-pipeline/

Apology

Issued Apology by MooPig 7:03 PM CST | 02.09.09

We at MooPig Enterprises, all 42,000 of us, who are now unemployed, apologize for misunderstanding on a large scale the so-called "Stimulus Plan..."

As we are set right tonight in this hour, by the first Barry Obama press conference... we now understand it is an "ECONOMIC Stimulus Plan"

Top PHOTO True : Bottom PHOTO False

All this first six weeks of the new year and new administration, we have thought Barry Obama was pushing an "ANATOMIC Stimulus Plan."

Any harm we have caused our patrons and worldwide constituents, we are sorry.

Post-Script: We want to just give a shout out to Prez B Obama for saying "PORK" five times tonight, and also when he said "SHAKY ASSETS" there was an air of forgiveness in the entire moopig distaff ranks...

Is Everyone Constipated?

Post Preponderance, by Pat Darnell

With all due respect -- why would anyone call the financial bailout "The Stimulus Package?" For example in this Letter to Obama "stimulus package" appears a dozen times. Does it mean we are going BROWN before we go GREEN? MooPig wants to know.

Letter to Obama | by • Posted January 26, 2009 05:19 PM | [SOURCE]
Forty-nine American Nobel laureates and other distinguished American scientists call the president's attention to the importance of increasing federal funding for scientific research.

Dear President Obama,
We know that the focus of the stimulus package is on short-term spending over 1-2 years, without long-term commitments of federal money. There are many urgent needs for short-term spending on science, such as infrastructure spending and bridge grants to allow research to continue until longer-term funding proposals are successful.

Funding for science and engineering creates good jobs throughout the local community: Families USA has estimated, for example, that each $1 billion of NIH research grant funding creates over 15,000 jobs with an average wage of $52,000/year and generates $2.21 billion of new business activity, a much better "multiplier" than many other proposed parts of the stimulus package.

Spending on science, engineering and technology will be only a relatively small part of a larger stimulus package, yet it will make a vital contribution to America's future. Increases in science spending provide an excellent stimulus while the economy needs one. But as you must appreciate, to rebuild American science, science spending will need to be sustained even when the economy returns to health. We know it is your goal to restore funding for science to the levels needed to maintain the vigor and leadership of American scientific research. We believe that the forthcoming economic stimulus package provides a remarkable opportunity to initiate this effort immediately, forcefully, and productively.... (read it all HERE)

Respectfully submitted,

Peter Agre, Ph.D.Bruce Alberts, Ph.D.Sidney Altman, Ph.D.Philip W. Anderson, Ph.D.Richard Axel, M.D.Paul Berg, Ph.D.J. Michael Bishop, M.D.Gunter Blobel, M.D., Ph.D.Baruch S. Blumberg, M.D., Ph.D.Michael S. BrownLinda B. Buck, Ph.D.Mario R. CapecchiMartin Chalfie, Ph.D.Stanley N. Cohen, M.D.Elias James Corey, Ph.D.Johann Deisenhofer, Ph.D.Fred H. Gage, Ph.D.Alfred G. Gilman, M.D., Ph.D.Sheldon Lee Glashow, Ph.D.Roy J. Glauber, Ph.D.Lee Goldman, M.D.Joseph L. Goldstein, M. D.Paul GreengardDavid Gross, Ph.D.Melvin M. Grumbach, M.D.Roger GuilleminogJohn L. Hall, Ph.DH. Robert Horvitz, Ph.DLouis J. IgnarroLee Goldman, M.D.Joseph L. Goldstein, M. D.Paul GreengardDavid Gross, Ph.D.Melvin M. Grumbach, M.D.Roger GuilleminogJohn L. Hall, Ph.DH. Robert Horvitz, Ph.DLouis J. IgnarroEric R. Kandel, M.DDonald Kennedy, Ph.DMarc Kirschner, Ph.D.Roger D. Kornberg, Ph.D.Herbert Kroemer, Ph.D.Robert B. Laughlin, Ph.D.Leon M. Lederman, Ph.D.Richard Lerner, M.D.Roderick MacKinnon, M.D.Joseph B. MartinosCraig C. Mello Ph.D. Kenneth D. Miller, Ph.D.Douglas D. Osheroff, Ph.D.Arno Allan Penzias, Ph.D.Gregory A. Petsko, D. Phil. (Oxon.)William Phillips, Ph.D.H. David Politzer, Ph.D.Stanley Prusiner, M.D.Robert C. Richardson, Ph.D.Phillip A. Sharp, Ph.D.Oliver Smithies, D. Phil.John D. Stobo, M.D.Horst Stormer, Ph.D.Joseph H. Taylor, Ph.D.Susumu TonegawaRoger Y. Tsien, Ph.D.Daniel C. Tsui, Ph.DP. Roy Vagelos, M.D.Craig Venter, Ph.D.Inder VermaCharles M. Vest, Ph.D.Andrew J. Viterbi, Ph.D.James D. Watson, Ph.D.Steven Weinberg, Ph.D.teven WeinbEric F. Wieschaus, Ph. D.Torsten N. Wiesel, M.D.Frank Wilczek. Ph.D.Charles Yanoksky, Ph.D.
####################
Previously: Read HERE entire ARTICLE
Saturday, August 16, 2008 | Phil Harris :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Constipation of the United States of America
by Phil Harris

An irregular diet and lots of stress seems like a perfect recipe for constipation. Sometimes, when we get too complicated in treating ailments, there are unforeseen, rebound effects that can be worse than the original symptoms. One can always make a case for using natural remedies whenever possible; leading ultimately to a steady, lasting improvement.

The United States of America is suffering from a severe case of social and political constipation. Liberals, such as Barak Obama and so many of the democrats who are in control of Congress are addicted to invasive remedies.

Stimulate This!!Okay last word: We're going BROWN.... with Obama's Package.