we seem to agree on direction, but not on time frame. up at least a dollar per year on gasoline until we "get over it" is more to my view.

Edit: and we are certainly not dependant on China for clean energy.

neither GE nor Vestas are in China (two of the largest wind turbine manufacturers). Solar is made here, Phillipines, Malasia, Germany, oh yes, and some in China.. to name a few.

GE inked a couple of deals with China in the energy sector Monday. Its not wind turbines yet... But they are on the way. Its just a matter of time.

GE to sign slew of China deals (registration required)

Wind turbines depend heavily on various Rare Earth metals, a single 3MW wind turbine (rather modest) containing over 700 pounds of neodymium.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/06/goodbye-fossil-fuel-dependence-hello-rare-earth-dependence.php
China currently has a virtual monopoly on their mining and refining. Of late, China has been reluctant to export either the ores or the refined metals, in favor of exporting only the finished parts.

Yes, the USA has some rare earth metal ore deposits (as well as a few other countries), but it will take many years to build the mines and refineries and bring them online.

China's classic method is to cooperate in the joint ventures until they have managed to swipe the technology behind it, then break off the joint ventures and go into the business themselves. Don't count on the USA being the world leader in wind turbines much longer.

All this for, per the article, 4,700 US jobs (over the short term). That is just a drop in the bucket. A measly 4,700 short term jobs, in exchange for selling us down the river for a couple of billion dollars.

EDIT: Oh, by the way, Vestas is in China too. In wind turbines. In a big way.
http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/company-structure/vestas-china.aspx

Another example of a left-wing idealogue killing jobs and the U.S. economy...

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee about her agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Congressman John Shimkus (R, Illinois) tore into Jackson, at one point demanding, "Do you believe in the law of supply and demand?!" - 2:52


http://nation.foxnews.com/epa/2011/02/09/epa-chief-lambasted-hearing-do-you-believe-law-supply-and-demand



Careful libs - it has NUMBERS and FACTS in it!

A great deal of technology has gone into making light bulbs burn out.
We are now finally moving to flourescent bulbs (via media/ad campaigns/pricing)
just as LED lighting is becoming Viable.

LED should win long term. More effecient with less toxic production. The problem is they will last too long, so prices should remain very very high.

Some of the earliest lightbulbs lasted 100 years. The ones on the market now regardless of type, not a chance.

Yes, and what happened in reality is the curving of the glass for those bulbs was deemed to difficult and costly to produce in the U.S. So, Sylvania, Philips and GE shut down all the incandescent manufacturing (along with the help of tree huggers in DC) and all the manufacturing moved to Asia. Brilliant!!! Move us towards more unemployment and a lower standard of living so you can feel better about a non-existent problem.

And what about those non-toxic toxic chemicals like Gallium Arsenide used to produce solar panels?

And I've recently started to consider whether leaving my computers on to search for extraterrestrial life is worth the damage to the planet.

BOOM!

A great deal of technology has gone into making light bulbs burn out.
We are now finally moving to flourescent bulbs (via media/ad campaigns/pricing)
just as LED lighting is becoming Viable.

LED should win long term. More effecient with less toxic production. The problem is they will last too long, so prices should remain very very high.

Some of the earliest lightbulbs lasted 100 years. The ones on the market now regardless of type, not a chance.

Yes, and what happened in reality is the curving of the glass for those bulbs was deemed to difficult and costly to produce in the U.S. So, Sylvania, Philips and GE shut down all the incandescent manufacturing (along with the help of tree huggers in DC) and all the manufacturing moved to Asia. Brilliant!!! Move us towards more unemployment and a lower standard of living so you can feel better about a non-existent problem.

And what about those non-toxic toxic chemicals like Gallium Arsenide used to produce solar panels?

The incandescent bulb is being phased out. Thats federal law. By 2014 you won't be able to get them anymore. I think it's been pointed out before that after 130 years we are due for a lighting upgrade

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Lighting upgrade at the expense of more job losses to China. Those who lost employment would disagree with more of your social engineering.

The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
by Ronald R. Cooke

The Cultural Economist

Author, "Oil, Jihad & Destiny" and "Detensive Nation"
November 30, 2009

Those who propose draconian measures to curb CO2 production need a math refresher course. Look at the projections. Assuming existing CO2 reduction policies are not changed, by 2030, human activity will account for about 3.3% of global CO2 production (NASA). By itself, the United States is projected to contribute 15.8% of world human emissions in 2030 (IEA/EIA). Therefore:

America’s projected share of total world CO2 emissions in 2030 is 3.3% x 15.8% = 0.52%.

Barack Obama has pledged that by 2030, America will have decreased its CO2 emissions by 42%. How effective will that cut be versus America’s projected emissions? Do the math.

3.3% x 15.8% x 42% = .22% of total world carbon emissions in 2030, and

15.8% x 42% = 6.64% of all human emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels.

There is, unfortunately, a critical problem with Barack’s pledge.

A reduction of that magnitude will definitely trash America’s economy.

Barack Obama assumes Americans are willing to endure the destructive misery of chronic recession in order to reduce total world CO2 emissions by a tiny little .22%, and human emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels by only 6.64%. Barack is telling the world we Americans are willing to turn off the heat , eat uncooked food, and turn off the lights 42% of the time. We will have to drive tiny little cars and trucks. The buildings we work in (or live in) will be insufferably hot in the summer and icy cold in the winter. Curtailing economic activity means more of us will be unemployed and even if we do have a job, it will not pay a living wage. (Unless of course, you happen to be a Washington insider.) More of us will be living in poverty. Health care will definitely deteriorate. In other words, by 2030 America’s economy will look just like Cuba’s economy.

Is this what we want?

I have three questions:

1. Who gave Barack permission to make this commitment?
2. Why is he pursuing a policy of economic self-destruction?
3. Are we willing to trash our economy for a tiny little change in world CO2 production?

There IS a correlation between economic growth and energy consumption. At no time in human history has there ever been a sustained increase in human wealth without a corresponding increase in the consumption of energy. We Americans can increase the efficiency of our consumption (and we are), but we can not sharply decrease our energy consumption without doing serious damage to our economy.

Do our people in Washington care that the proposed CO2 reductions will drive up the rate of unemployment, increase the rate of inflation, and force Americans to accept poverty as a way of life?

Apparently not. . One can only conclude certain persons in Congress and the Obama Administration are either math challenged, or these people have a deceptive agenda that has little to do with global warming.

Hopefully, it’s only a problem of simple math.

TEA

www.moralnation.blogspot.com

References:

Carbon cycle data. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Science Enterprise, Carbon Cycle.

The IEA’s International Energy Outlook 2009, Projects CO2 emissions at 40.4 billion metric tons in 2030. Developing nations, including China, India and the Middle east, will account for 97% of the increase in CO2 emissions from 2006 through 2030. The United States, along with the other OECD nations, will cause only 3% of the increase in CO2 emissions, assuming there is NO change to existing fossil fuels consumption policies.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030, projects United States CO2 emissions in 2030 at 6.4 million metric tons. Energy-related CO2 emissions in the AEO2009 reference case grow by 0.3 percent per year from 2007 to 2030. The U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the country's emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels to decrease 5.6% in 2009. Most of this decrease is due to the recession which has reduced economic activity (and GDP).

From the EIA International Energy Outlook 2009, Reference Case.

“Over the 24-year projection period, the average annual increase in non-OECD emissions from 2006 to 2030 (2.2 percent) is seven times (my emphasis) the rate projected for the OECD countries (0.3 percent). In 2030, non-OECD emissions (25.8 billion metric tons) exceed OECD emissions (14.6 billion metric tons) by 77 percent.”

“Coal is the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, and it is the fastest-growing carbon-emitting energy source in the IEO2009 reference case projection, reflecting its important role in the energy mix of non-OECD countries—especially, China and India. In 1990, China and India together accounted for 13 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions; in 2006 their combined share had risen to 25 percent, largely because of strong economic growth and increasing use of coal to provide energy for that growth. In 2030, carbon dioxide emissions from China and India combined are projected to account for 34 percent of total world emissions, with China alone responsible for 29 percent of the world total.”

“In the IEO2009 reference case, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent from 2006 to 2030.” …. “The highest growth rate among the non-OECD countries is projected for China, at 2.8 percent annually from 2006 to 2030, reflecting the country’s continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels, especially coal, in the projection.”

The US plans to pledge a 17% cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050.

http://www.financialsensearchive.com/editorials/cooke/2009/1130.html

I'm going to assume that your numbers are correct, I haven't seen anyone here take the time to check them and I can't be bothered myself. In the end it's neither here nor there.

Imagine a pencil carefully balanced on it's tip, I've borrowed this picture from a site that was actually discussing quantum mechanics, but it's the best illustration I could find at short notice.



This pencil is in what we call and unstable equilibrium. It theoretically will stay balanced until something disturbs that equilibrium.

When the pencil is disturbed even slightly from it's equilibrium, a tiny nudge, the results will be catastrophic (for the pencils equilibrium). It will not move to another angle and stay there, instead it will topple over until it finds a new equilibrium. Most likely lying on it's side.

The climate is also a non-linear system, although much more complicated than our pencil. However, because it is non-linear, a very small change can have a dramatic and sudden result.

A "few" tons of extra carbon may be all it would take to push our climate out of it's equilibrium. This is what the scientists have been trying to tell you. There will come a point when the climate will beyond the point of return, just like the pencil. After that point there will be nothing we can do to put it back. It will continue to "topple over" until it finds a new equilibrium.

Yes, climates have changed in the past, on this scale the results have lead to mass extinctions, famine etc. It would be marvellous for those in the north to grow different crops. It seems to have escaped people's notice that there is more to the planet than just the northern hemisphere. Islands that people live on are already disappearing under the water and people are already dying from famines and floods.

Even your precious countrymen are getting wise....




Ontario cans more windmills.

The provincial government has suddenly abandoned any plans to construct offshore wind projects.

Citing environmental concerns, the Liberals made the surprising announcement Friday.

While there are no renewable energy approvals for offshore wind projects anywhere in the province, the issue has been a political problem for the Liberals.

Voters in Kingston and along the Scarborough Bluffs have been vigorously opposed to constructing the offshore wind farms.

“We will be working with our U.S. neighbours to ensure that any offshore wind projects are protective of the environment,” Environment Minister John Wilkinson said in a release. “Offshore wind on freshwater lakes is a recent concept that requires a cautious approach until the science of environmental impact is clear.”

Anti-wind activists called the move an absolute victory.

Wind Concerns Ontario President John Laforet said he feels vindicated.

“I don’t think they care about the environment,” he said. “Because if they cared for it they wouldn’t be allowing on land projects either.”

Laforet said he’s watched projects go up after forests have been blasted down.

“I think what they have realized is they have unleashed hell on themselves before an election and we aren’t going away,” he said. “One side of me feels vindicated in being a volunteer in this role … but at the same time I don’t believe for a second these guys care for the environment.”

The government also said applications for offshore wind projects in the feed-in-tariff program will no longer be accepted and current applications will be suspended.

Canada has ample area for land based windmills without resorting to offshore.

The point is moot.

---

Janice

Okay - Mind if I jump in??? :D

Good thread this is, not too much flaming, and full of reasonably truthful statistics. But after reading most of the thread, I see a number of false notations. Lets get a few things straight here...

1) Per Wind Farm, Per Year, Wind kills less birds than any conventional coal powered, gas powered or oil powered Power Plant. And, as blade sizes get bigger (it's all about the swept area! Larger Swept Area = Larger Amount of Energy possible to be captured), they rotate slower. Giving birds more of a chance. Bats? No problem, simply attach a low-power microwave transmitter atop each turbine.

2) The largest turbine currently in production is the Enercon E-126. 7.5MW capacity. A few companies are working on a 10MW turbine, and I've seen mockups and plans for 12MW & 15MW turbines. But don't you dare for one second think that just because the power output doubles, the blade length doubles. It doesn't. Google 'Swept Area'.

3) People who think wind turbines are visual pollution need to stop whining. Counter those types by simply asking 'Mate, would you prefer a wind turbine or a coal fired power plant next to your property?'.

4) Nuclear Fission is old, dirty, and obsolete. Pro-nuclear folk often argue that fission is green. No C)2, no other atmospheric pollutants (except for water vapor and steam - which can actually have a larger greenhouse impact). Where do they intend to keep the (small amounts) of high-level radioactive waste and the (infinitely more common) amounts of low-level radioactive waste. Google 'Sellafield / Windscale' - the waste is literally oozing sludge. And now that Obama has fatally stabbed Yucca Mountain...

5) The source of energy we need to to some R&D with is Nuclear Fusion. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it costs alot of money. Stop tending to some of those fission waste pools and we might have a bit more of it.... Fusion is CLEAN, ELEGANT, SIMPLE, BEAUTIFUL & INHERENTLY SAFE.

Clean?
The products involved in Nuclear Fusion are all around us and are safe. (In the long run) you fuse two Deuturium (Hydrogen with a neutron, often called Hydrogen-2) nuclei together, which can either release energy (key) and Helium-3 (which is high demand with short supply!) + Tritium (Hydrogen with 2 neutrons), slightly radioactive but still considered safe enough to use in watches!!!
At most, the low level radioactivity would be gone in 100 years.

Elegant & Beautiful?
Nuclear Fusion is how the sun operates. The sun is a natural fusion reactor. In all the chaos following the big bang, in all the entropy, matter assembled itself to create power and light.

Simple?
Fuse 2 nuclei together, make Helium, get energy. Got it? No mucking around with control rods and pressure reactors.

Inherently Safe?
There is no possibility of a runaway reaction. If the power fails, the lasers (which compress the deuterium, fusing it) stop working, which results in no power. The amount of deuterium 'fuel' in the reactor at any one time is on the order of grams. Fission reactors often contain enough fuel to last them a decade or more.

6) Drill, baby, drill. The moment I saw that, I lost all confidence in humanity. Sarah Palin's pro-oil agenda disgusts me. How many times has she been in bed with big-oil? And all those sheep in the crowd, holding and waving their 'Oil : Energy Independence for America'. Do they understand anything? How is it 'independence' if they continue to drill for a finite resource (40-70 years and counting of oil left). They're paying around $100 a barrel now!!! Energy independence via oil??? What a joke.

7) And big oil plus its crew continue to propagate the misinformation that people that care for the environment are 'tree huggers', and are 'nancy pansies' who drive Prius's and Leaf's everywhere? Get a life. Get on YouTube and search up kevindblanch's rant video well titled 'F* BP' - I won't link it for obvious reasons, but it has to be one of the most truthful videos I've seen in a long time. Does he look like a tree hugger nancy pansie to you???

7 points. 70 minutes. Thanks!

---

- Luke.

Lighting upgrade at the expense of more job losses to China. Those who lost employment would disagree with more of your social engineering.

And this is my fault. How about assigning blame where its so rightly deserved. The profit worshiping corporations. I didn't tell them to make everything in CHina or SE asia. I Haven't looked but I'd bet that most incandescent bulbs are made in CHina anyway

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas

By Peter Whoriskey, The Washington Post
Wednesday, September 8, 2010; 9:48 PM

WINCHESTER, VA. - The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison's innovations in the 1870s.

The remaining 200 workers at the plant here will lose their jobs.

"Now what're we going to do?" said Toby Savolainen, 49, who like many others worked for decades at the factory, making bulbs now deemed wasteful.

During the recession, political and business leaders have held out the promise that American advances, particularly in green technology, might stem the decades-long decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs. But as the lighting industry shows, even when the government pushes companies toward environmental innovations and Americans come up with them, the manufacture of the next generation technology can still end up overseas.

What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.

The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences.

Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.

Consisting of glass tubes twisted into a spiral, they require more hand labor, which is cheaper there. So though they were first developed by American engineers in the 1970s, none of the major brands make CFLs in the United States.

"Everybody's jumping on the green bandwagon," said Pat Doyle, 54, who has worked at the plant for 26 years. But "we've been sold out. First sold out by the government. Then sold out by GE. "

Doyle was speaking after a shift last month surrounded by several co-workers around a picnic table near the punch clock. Many of the workers have been at the plant for decades, and most appeared to be in their 40s and 50s. Several worried aloud about finding another job.

"When you're 50 years old, no one wants you," Savolainen said. It was meant half in jest, but some of the men nod grimly.

If there is a green bandwagon, as Doyle says, much of the Obama administration is on board. As a means of creating U.S. jobs, the administration has been promoting the nation's "green economy" - solar power, electric cars, wind turbines - with the idea that U.S. innovations in those fields may translate into U.S. factories. President Obama said last month that he expects the government's commitment to clean energy to lead to more than 800,000 jobs by 2012, one step in a larger journey planned to restore U.S. manufacturing.

But officials are working against a daunting trend. Under the pressures of globalization, the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States has been shrinking for decades, from 19.5 million in 1979 to 11.6 million this year, a decline of 40 percent.

At textile mills in North Carolina, at auto parts plants in Ohio, at other assorted manufacturing plants around the country, the closures have pushed workers out, often leaving them to face an onslaught of personal defeats: lower wages, community college retraining and unemployment checks.

In Obama's vision, the nation's mastery of new technology will create American manufacturing jobs.

"See, when folks lift up the hoods on the cars of the future, I want them to see engines stamped "Made in America," Obama said in an Aug. 16 speech at a Wisconsin plant. "When new batteries to store solar power come off the line, I want to see printed on the side, "Made in America." When new technologies are developed and new industries are formed, I want them made right here in America. That's what we're fighting for."

But a closer look at the lighting industry reveals that isn't going to be easy.

At one time, the United States was ahead of the game in CFLs.

Following the 1973 energy crisis, a GE engineer named Ed Hammer and others at the company's famed Nela Park research laboratories were tinkering with different methods of saving electricity with fluorescent lights.

In a standard incandescent bulb, in which the filament is electrified until it glows, only about 10 percent of the electricity is transformed into light; the rest generates heat as a side effect. A typical fluorescent uses about 75 percent less electricity than an incandescent to produce the same amount of light.

The trouble facing Hammer was that fluorescents are most efficient in long tubes. But long, linear tubes don't fit into the same lamp fixtures that the standard incandescent bulbs do.

Working with a team of talented glass blowers, though, Hammer twisted the tubes into a spiral. The new lamps had length, but were also more compact.

"I knew it was a good lamp design," he recalled recently. In retrospect, in fact, it was a key innovation. The Smithsonian houses Hammer's original spiral CFL prototype.

At the time, however, the design had one big problem. Bending all that glass into the required shape was slow and required lots of manual labor.

"I used to say you would need 40,000 glass blowers to make the parts," Hammer said. "Without automation, it was economically unfeasible. It was a lamp before its time."

The company decided to make investments in other types of lighting then being developed.

Years passed. The next major innovator to try his hand at CFLs was Ellis Yan, a Chinese immigrant to the United States, who had started his own lighting business in China and then in the early '90s turned his attention to the possibilities of CFLs.

To make CFLs, he had workers in China sit beside furnaces and bend the glass by hand. Even with the low-wages there, the first attempts were very expensive, clunky and flickered when turned on, he said. But he persisted.

"Everybody [in the industry] stayed back and was watching me," he recalled. "No one else wanted to make the big investment for the next generation of technology."

The business prospered and Yan's factories in China employed as many as 14,000 - not so far off from the 40,000 glass blowers that Hammer had once imagined would be necessary. With new automation techniques, Yan is seeking to cut the number of his employees in China, where wages are rising, to 5,000 by year's end.

Today, about a quarter of the lights sold in the United States are CFLs, according to NEMA, an industry association. Of those, Yan says, he manufactures more than half.

Someday soon, Yan says, he hopes to build a U.S. factory, though he so far has been unable to secure $12.5 million in government funding for the project.

Manufacturing in the United States would add 10 percent or more to the cost of building a standard CFL, he said, but retailers have indicated that there is a demand for products manufactured domestically.

"Retailers tell me people ask for 'Made in the USA' " Yan said. "I tell them the product will cost 45 to 50 cents more. They say people will pay for it."

Sales of the CFLs began slowly, but they spiked in 2006 and 2007, when federal and state government efforts promoted their use.

The Energy Department teamed with Disney to develop a public service announcement based on the Disney Pixar film "Ratatouille" to encourage the adoption of technologies such as CFLs. It was shown on CNN, HGTV and the Food Network.

Lawmakers in California and Nevada drafted legislation calling for higher efficiency standards for light bulbs. And in December 2007, Congress passed its new energy standards.

GE balked at the standards at first, knowing that they could impact their U.S. manufacturing. But the company also saw that with restrictions gaining momentum in more states and other countries, some kind of legislation was unavoidable. They decided to support the bill as long as it didn't amount to a ban on traditional incandescents, but instead simply set energy standards.

"We obviously pointed out to legislators that the impact of an outright ban would be an elimination of some manufacturing operations," said Earl Jones, senior counsel in government relations and regulatory compliance at the company. "But it was inevitable that some kind of legislation would be coming to the U.S."

As expected, the new standards hurt the business in traditional incandescents.

The company developed a plan to see what it would take to retrofit a plant that makes traditional incandescents into one that makes CFLs. Even with a $40 million investment and automation, the disparity in wages and other factors made it uneconomical. The new plant's CFLs would have cost about 50 percent more than those from China, GE officials said.

The company also makes halogen light bulbs, which are an innovative type of incandescent, and Sylvania is transforming its incandescent light bulb factory in St. Marys, Pa. to halogen as well.

But the era of traditional incandescents built in the United States was coming to an end.

In announcing the plant closure here, GE said in a news release that "a variety of energy regulations," including those in the United States, "will soon make the familiar lighting products produced at the Winchester Plant obsolete."

"For those who make incandescent bulbs the law was bad for business," Yan said. "For people like us, it was very good."

Temperatures at the traditional incandescent plant here can be sweltering because of the heat coming from the machines that melt the glass. It's noisy, too, and workers wear ear plugs and safety glasses. And the pace of the work demands constant hustle, an atmosphere created by managers over the years who set up competitions among teams of workers striving to meet production goals. The winning line could post a black-and-white checkered flag on their machinery.

Jobs at the plant have been prized locally for years: They pay about $30 an hour.

One day after punching out recently, the workers gathered around the picnic tables by the employee entrance.

Some expressed grievances with the plant managers, who they note will get new jobs elsewhere, or with Congress for passing the energy legislation. Several took aim at the new new technology itself, noting that CFLs have mercury in them.

Some at the plant will be able to retire off their severance packages. Those with less time on the job, or those who are younger, have braced themselves for whatever comes next.

Some are taking classes at the Lord Fairfax Community College, hoping that familiarity with solar panels or HVAC might land them a job. Others scan the want-ads but don't see how they will replace what they were making at the factory.

This small town has not been terribly hurt by the recession; local unemployment is running at 7.5 percent, well below the national average.

But good-paying jobs in manufacturing, they said, have become difficult to find.

Beverly Carter, 50, who feeds cardboard sleeves into a machine and makes sure it doesn't jam, has worked at the plant for 32 years.

"It's very hard to find a job like that around here," she said.

Moreover, because many of the workers are in their 40s and 50s, some were nagged by worries that other employers would see them as washed up.

"We gave GE the best years of our lives," Savolainen said.

Matt Madigan, 40, and his twin brothers, Wayne and Dwayne, also work at the plant.

"We've always had a lot of industry here in the valley, I've never had a problem finding a job," he said. "A person really wanted to work, you could go from one factory to another. Everything nowadays is tougher."

Cree Banishes Last Century’s Lighting with Revolutionary LED Light Bulb

Thank You Mr. Edison, We’ll Take it From Here

DURHAM, N.C., January 27, 2011 — Today, 131 years ago, Thomas Alva Edison was granted U.S. patent 223,898 for “Improvement in Electric Lamps and in the method of manufacturing.” Today’s LED lighting revolution heralds the demise of Edison’s 1880, horse-and-buggy-era invention.

In an industry first, Cree, Inc. (Nasdaq: CREE) has demonstrated the brightest, most-efficient, LED-based A-lamp that can meet ENERGY STAR® performance requirements for a 60-watt standard LED replacement bulb. This unprecedented level of performance is the result of Cree innovation, Cree barrier-breaking LED performance, Cree TrueWhite® Technology and patented Cree remote-phosphor technology.


http://autohire.careershop.com/cree/JobSearch/JobSearchList.asp?View=Jobs

Those who say it can not be done are annoying those who are doing it.

---

Janice

No need to read since you made my point. Blame big business. They clearly had a choice of retooling the plant or shipping the business overseas. they made their choice. Obama should be blamed for this as well? A liberal conspiracy? how about greed at work again.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I am more and more convinced the terms "left" and "right" are being misused.

The actual perspective seems to be

Left=Forward
Right=Backwards.

And we have tried more than enough backwards thinking.

---

Janice

I am more and more convinced the terms "left" and "right" are being misused.

The actual perspective seems to be

Left=Forward
Right=Backwards.

And we have tried more than enough backwards thinking.

Nah

Left = any direction and fast
Right = hang tight a second while we check the map

---

more like

left = very good ideas, perhaps poor implementation and educating people on facts.

Right = hit the brakes, disagree with everything the left says, call it socialism to scare people even though they secretly wish they'd have an original thought to themselves so they wouldn't constantly look like they are a virgin on their first real date. NO NO NO NO NO

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I am more and more convinced the terms "left" and "right" are being misused.

The actual perspective seems to be

Left=Forward
Right=Backwards.

And we have tried more than enough backwards thinking.

If this is "forward thinking", let's go backwards ASAP!

more like

left = very good ideas, perhaps poor implementation

Ya think?! Likely a bunch of over enthusiasm thrown in too and a missing dose of reality check.

First time I've heard anyone on the left admit their error. The right sees the sum total of their poor implementation as worse than doing nothing.

and educating people on facts.

Requires you to stop and do a study. It isn't oh my gawd if we don't put something, ANYTHING! in place NOW NOW NOW NOW someone is going to suffer because we didn't rob our great grandchildren.

Right = hit the brakes, disagree with everything the left says, call it socialism to scare people even though they secretly wish they'd have an original thought to themselves so they wouldn't constantly look like they are a virgin on their first real date. NO NO NO NO NO

Attempting to get a good plan in place to implement isn't:
Change and Hope it is better.

---

TELL ME WHERE I CAN BY A THERM OF NATURAL GAS FOR 44 CENTS.

ALSO; Corn price rise due to ethanol nonsense ?/

what are we going to do about this ??

the chart was commodity exchange prices(where applicable) there were also some positives things.

Showing prices from the mid post-dubya slide to today, I am not even sure what the point is.

Nothing surprising to anyone that understands the markets.

---

Janice