NYC_SKP
NYC_SKP's JournalTrue, but it won't be hydrogen except in niche areas. Hydrogen for storage is WAY too inefficient.
Pumped Hydro and Batteries are far, far, more efficient.
Chevron wants you to buy the Hydrogen Economy claptrap.
95% of our hydrogen comes from natural gas.
Solar or Wind or any renewable to hydrogen is terribly inefficient:
https://ecobarons.wordpress.com/hydrogen-blast-the-fuel-of-the-future-and-it-always-will-be/
And for transportation, nothing beats a Battery for storage when it comes to GHG emissions.
Bill n Hill played the classic game: "We gotta be LIKE them if we wanna BEAT them."
.
And then they lost their way.
Hillary Clinton with Taj Palace general manager Taljinder Singh
The Taj Palace in New Delhi seems to be Hillary Clinton's favourite place to stay. This is apparently the third consecutive time the US Secretary of State chose to stay at the lavish Tata Suite while she visited the capital this week.
The luxury 6,500 sqft, 16-room Tata Suite comes with its own private spa (fyi, Mrs Clinton even has a go-to massueur here), a gym, a private library, a 12-seater dining room and a boardroom. Incidentally, France's now ex-president Nicholas Sarkozy was the first world leader to stay at the Rs 8 lakh a night mugal-themed suite (click here to take a peek at the suite).
The hotel says the Tata suite was 'specially prepared according to her tastes' - that included stocking the Tata suite with big coffee mugs and a small platter of Indian sweets. She even got a bespoke shopping experience, curated by the hotel's in-house lifestyle brand. We wonder if she bought any of the paintings or ethnic tarakashi or garva kaam pieces displayed.
http://luxpresso.com/news-indulge/inside-the-rs-8-lakh-tata-suite-hillary-clinton-stayed-at-in-delhi/12601
I posted that link earlier, my figures are for CGI, a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation
.
Here, let me educate you and other readers:
It's a complex series of businesses within the greater organization:
And their expenses versus revenue figures are red flags for a supposed non-profit.
And the salaries, $464,229 plus benefits, OMG!
Really, Hillary should have recused herself from making decisions with potential donors to their foundation, or the foundation should have refused the money.
This is the classic conflict of interest she's put herself in, and by extension, MY PARTY.
She needs to go away.
It's hard to believe that a person that smart can act so carelessly.
A trifecta of fail:
1: Run a family foundation WHILE you're secretary of state.
2: Approve sketchy deals and then TAKE funds from agents in that deal, and fail to report it.
3: Do these things while using a private email server in your home, then deleting files from it.
These taken together would be the end of the job interview anywhere but in bizarro land.
I looked into the Clinton Global Initiative's financial records, their Form 990:
Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:
Revenue: $28,221,924
Grants paid: $8,975,872
Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577
Other expenses: $12,296,668
Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf
GuideStar couldn't provide a Schedule A, which would have listed such details as salaries.
Chelsea V Clinton is listed as a director, but no salary is described, that's often on Schedules A and J.
Personally, when I know that United Way puts out 65-75% of their revenue in grants and CGI can only spit out 32%, it's a red flag.
And when United Way grants paid out are always well above the salaries plus overhead but CGI salaries + expenses are DOUBLE what the grants are, that's a red flag.
There is the appearance that CGI is a money pit that does some good but at a very high cost for doing that good.
Technically, it's legal to have a foundation that takes in money and all they do is fly around and make presentations and shake hands.
The numbers surprised me, but then it fits the pattern.
$28 million in revenue, and over $19 million of it going to salaries and expenses.
Red flags, much?
ETA link to their own statement: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf
My figures above are from GuideStar, I don't know why Form 990 numbers from their site are different from the link immediately above, but the red flags are still there, much of the funds go to salaries and travel and conventions:
I think the Clinton Global Initiative is just a small chunk of the Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Now my head really hurts.
Some interesting figures that came from simple research about CGI:
I work with nonprofits and thought I'd look up the numbers for CGI.
You know, some orgs send a lot of their revenue on direct assistance while others spend a lot on salaries and expenses.
Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:
Revenue: $28,221,924
Grants paid: $8,975,872
Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577
Other expenses: $12,296,668
Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf
GuideStar couldn't provide a Schedule A, which would have listed such details as salaries.
Chelsea V Clinton is listed as a director, but no salary is described, that's often on Schedules A and J.
Personally, when I know that United Way puts out 65-75% of their revenue in grants and CGI can only spit out 32%, it's a red flag.
And when United Way grants paid out are always well above the salaries plus overhead but CGI salaries + expenses are DOUBLE what the grants are, that's a red flag.
There is the appearance that CGI is a money pit that does some good but at a very high cost for doing that good.
Technically, it's legal to have a foundation that takes in money and all they do is fly around and make presentations and shake hands.
The numbers surprised me, but then it fits the pattern.
If the party isn't going to vet candidates, and the media isn't going to vet candidates, then it's up to us, I guess.
Answer: 1: NO. Only 32% of CGI revenue was spend on grants paid out.
Reported prior year figures reported on their 2013 Form 990:
Revenue: $28,221,924
Grants paid: $8,975,872
Salaries, benefits: $6,949,577
Other expenses: $12,296,668
Less than 32% of the revenue was spent on grants paid out.
Over 24% was spent on salaries and benefits.
"Other expenses" accounted for almost 44%.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2013/271/551/2013-271551550-0b0d6513-9.pdf
Recommended.
Shedding some light on the candidates, I'm grateful.
Also, glad to hear John Kerry get props for a change.
DU: Beware the Water Desalination Movement and it's Lies.
"Water is the next Oil" "Be Prepared to Pay Gas Prices for Water"
Citizens, we are going to see more and more posts promoting desalination as a solution to drought and scarcity of water.
-- Proceed with caution, desalination is a very costly and energy-intensive process and has dire environmental consequences.
-- It is favored by mega-utility companies and if deployed will make us more and more dependent upon nameless faceless corporations that will not answer to our needs.
-- Defend your local water utility, if you still have one, and lobby for more conservation measures and penalties for water waste.
-- Hold your legislators' feet to the fire to hold big agriculture and fracking entities to strict conservation and water recovery standards.
-- Water scarcity keeps suburban sprawl to a minimum; desalination plants are a developer's dream. Don't be tempted, be informed.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/desalination-has-a-big-problem/
Read Food & Water Watch’s report, Desalination – An Ocean of Problems
Read Debbie Cook’s essay, Desalination – Energy Down the Drain
Watch the PBS "POV" video, "Thirst"! http://www.pbs.org/pov/thirst/
And, THANK YOU!!!
DU: Beware the Hydrogen Economy Lies being pushed by the Fossil Fuel industry.
It's very easy to fall for the lies:
"hydrogen is a clean energy source" (it's not a source and it's neither clean nor green)
From a single OP earlier today, the post contains a great deal of information and it needs to be vetted. I'm selecting two claims to debunk.
First: A graphic that reads "Sphera Hydrogen is Easy to Use". Follow the links to see THIS graphic explaining that it's a Natural Gas and Coal-to-Hydrogen Scheme.
Throw some solar and wind turbines in and Carbon Capture and Sequestration and all of a sudden it's "green" (washed).
Second: The 2013 model of Panasonic's household fuel cell (ENE FARM) is mentioned as if to demonstrate proof of this new clean technology. Well, the problem is that these fuel cells use natural gas as the energy source. They depend 100% on Fossil Fuels.
Household fuel cells have adopted city gas (methane, CH4) as fuel, and steam reforming
as the method to produce hydrogen, so that the existing city gas supply infrastructure can be used.
Since hydrogen is produced in the place where it is used, there is no need to transport or store hydrogen, which is hard to handle.
However, when hydrogen is extracted by steam reforming, carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) are produced, because it is a fossil resource containing carbon that is being reformed.
http://panasonic.co.jp/ap/FC/en_doc02_02.html
Look, I'm as interested in solutions as anyone, but I also spend most of my time studying the energy industry and I have never seen such greenwashing done as is being done right now by the conglomeration of interests struggling to keep a stranglehold on their piece of the energy pie.
Specifically, and with the growth in rooftop solar and battery electric vehicles, the old model of petrol filling stations and high utility bills is beginning to be displaced.
Do you know what would keep us beholden to the current Big Gas and Oil interests?
Hydrogen.
It's true. We make shit up all the time, it's called "experimentation"...
We ask, "what if" all the time, and then we test it and test it again.
Ya know, skepticscott, it's a real shame you resist the beauty of the truth here, of the LTR between science and religion. It's a love affair, not a contest.
Science and religion are practically inseparable, both having been with humankind throughout history, and with no indication that this will ever change, both are in our DNA.
How you've been convinced to believe that they are somehow incompatible in every case is beyond me, the evidence of their similarities and symbiosis is overwhelming.
Both are products of our innate curiosity, both require faith at different stages, both seek to find order in things and to explain things.
Science involves more testing and research and constant refinement, but other than these the two domains are more alike than they are different.
I don't need to back it up, it's all self evident.
Profile Information
Name: N/AGender: Do not display
Hometown: The Golden State
Home country: www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&f
Current location: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1243&pid=30906
Member since: Thu May 29, 2008, 11:43 PM
Number of posts: 68,644
