# The unsustainability of "green" energy



## P@triot

Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.

The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.

Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).

World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy


----------



## Agit8r

Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You stated that you have to spend a million dollars to get the equivalent of an AAA battery.

Ever heard of portable solar panels?  They sell them in the stores, and here in Amarillo, one of those stores is called Battery Joe's.

The panels cost about 25 or 30 bucks, will last for several years, and are capable of fully charging a cell phone or tablet in a few hours.

Some people run their whole house off the grid from solar and wind power, and they usually don't spend more than 10,000 on equipment that they can use for years.

I don't think your argument holds water.


----------



## The Great Goose

Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.


----------



## ABikerSailor

The Great Goose said:


> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.



It also works for the nation as well.  Look at how much energy France gets from green sources.


----------



## westwall

Agit8r said:


> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.












No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.


----------



## Skull Pilot

ABikerSailor said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also works for the nation as well.  Look at how much energy France gets from green sources.
Click to expand...


They get 80% from nuclear
BTW I think nuclear is green energy especially if a next generation breeder reactor is used.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Agit8r said:


> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.



World oil production is over 90 million barrels a day.
How much of that falls under your "federal lease give away" scenario?


----------



## Manonthestreet

ABikerSailor said:


> You stated that you have to spend a million dollars to get the equivalent of an AAA battery.
> 
> Ever heard of portable solar panels?  They sell them in the stores, and here in Amarillo, one of those stores is called Battery Joe's.
> 
> The panels cost about 25 or 30 bucks, will last for several years, and are capable of fully charging a cell phone or tablet in a few hours.
> 
> Some people run their whole house off the grid from solar and wind power, and they usually don't spend more than 10,000 on equipment that they can use for years.
> 
> I don't think your argument holds water.


Tried two those....they both are in the trash.....tried solar spot light....good thing they let you plug it into the house or it would be in the trash.


----------



## OnePercenter

The Great Goose said:


> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.



My property in San Diego (Coronado) receives 93% of electricity (including my car) used via solar. Still have 21 years on the warranty. 

According to Republicans in Nevada, solar should only be for the rich.


----------



## Agit8r

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World oil production is over 90 million barrels a day.
> How much of that falls under your "federal lease give away" scenario?
Click to expand...


Most of it in this country.  Other sweetheart deals in other countries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Agit8r said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World oil production is over 90 million barrels a day.
> How much of that falls under your "federal lease give away" scenario?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of it in this country.  Other sweetheart deals in other countries.
Click to expand...


Most? How many barrels?


----------



## Wyatt earp

ABikerSailor said:


> You stated that you have to spend a million dollars to get the equivalent of an AAA battery.
> 
> Ever heard of portable solar panels?  They sell them in the stores, and here in Amarillo, one of those stores is called Battery Joe's.
> 
> The panels cost about 25 or 30 bucks, will last for several years, and are capable of fully charging a cell phone or tablet in a few hours.
> 
> Some people run their whole house off the grid from solar and wind power, and they usually don't spend more than 10,000 on equipment that they can use for years.
> 
> I don't think your argument holds water.




You live in Amarillo texas? Kind of a cool town.


I was reading yesterday about 3d printers that reproduce / mining the moon/ making solar panels to put in earths orbit kind of interesting. 



Solar Panels Grown On The Moon Could Power The Earth



.


----------



## OnePercenter

westwall said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.
Click to expand...


*No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.*

How much will it cost when mass produced?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.*
> 
> How much will it cost when mass produced?
Click to expand...


Who'd want to mass produce a fuel that costs 7 times what regular jet fuel costs?


----------



## Agit8r

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World oil production is over 90 million barrels a day.
> How much of that falls under your "federal lease give away" scenario?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of it in this country.  Other sweetheart deals in other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most? How many barrels?
Click to expand...


around 2 million barrels per day

Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Agit8r said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World oil production is over 90 million barrels a day.
> How much of that falls under your "federal lease give away" scenario?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of it in this country.  Other sweetheart deals in other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most? How many barrels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> around 2 million barrels per day
> 
> Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...


So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
Your math is weak.


----------



## Agit8r

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World oil production is over 90 million barrels a day.
> How much of that falls under your "federal lease give away" scenario?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of it in this country.  Other sweetheart deals in other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most? How many barrels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> around 2 million barrels per day
> 
> Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.
Click to expand...


I see that oil from federal lands accounts for 21% of total production

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/federallands/pdf/eia-federallandsales.pdf

touche.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.*
> 
> How much will it cost when mass produced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who'd want to mass produce a fuel that costs 7 times what regular jet fuel costs?
Click to expand...


*Who'd want to mass produce a fuel that costs 7 times what regular jet fuel costs?*

Answer the question and we'll find out.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World oil production is over 90 million barrels a day.
> How much of that falls under your "federal lease give away" scenario?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of it in this country.  Other sweetheart deals in other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most? How many barrels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> around 2 million barrels per day
> 
> Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.
Click to expand...


*So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
Your math is weak.*

Oil is weak because investors made it cheap.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Agit8r said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> World oil production is over 90 million barrels a day.
> How much of that falls under your "federal lease give away" scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of it in this country.  Other sweetheart deals in other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most? How many barrels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> around 2 million barrels per day
> 
> Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that oil from federal lands accounts for 21% of total production
> 
> https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/federallands/pdf/eia-federallandsales.pdf
> 
> touche.
Click to expand...


651 million barrels in 2014. And these barrels were "given away"? How?
Less than 2 million barrels a day. Versus over 90 million barrels worldwide
Like I said, your math is weak.


----------



## P@triot

ABikerSailor said:


> You stated that you have to spend a million dollars to get the equivalent of an AAA battery.
> 
> Ever heard of portable solar panels?  They sell them in the stores, and here in Amarillo, one of those stores is called Battery Joe's.
> 
> The panels cost about 25 or 30 bucks, will last for several years, and are capable of fully charging a cell phone or tablet in a few hours.
> 
> Some people run their whole house off the grid from solar and wind power, and they usually don't spend more than 10,000 on equipment that they can use for years.
> 
> I don't think your argument holds water.


Dude....$25 or $30 to charge your cell phone? I can charge my cell phone off of the nuclear powered electrical grid for abut $0.02.

What a completely nonsensical comment. You literally just proved my point. Most solar panels for home power cost $10,000 and you need FOUR (that's right - four of them) to provide the 22kw - 27kw of a normal home. So $40,000 to power my home?!?! I've lived my entire life and have not spent $40,000 on every electric bill I've ever had in my life totaled together.

So once again - THANK YOU for proving my point! You pay a mind-boggling fortune and get no energy in return. A $10k solar panel isn't enough to run half a home. Only enough to run 1/4th of a home. That is insane.


----------



## westwall

OnePercenter said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My property in San Diego (Coronado) receives 93% of electricity (including my car) used via solar. Still have 21 years on the warranty.
> 
> According to Republicans in Nevada, solar should only be for the rich.
Click to expand...











In a word.  Bullshit.  You would have to have over an acre of solar panels to attain that percentage.  My wifes family is from La Jolla, we know the area well.  You are simply full of crap.


----------



## westwall

OnePercenter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.*
> 
> How much will it cost when mass produced?
Click to expand...









Even more than fossil fuels.  I guess you missed the part where it takes fossil fuel (vast amounts of it) to MAKE bio fuel.  How can you miss that part?


----------



## P@triot

Agit8r said:


> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.


Nothing could be further from the truth. For every fossil fuel subsidy, there are several thousand green energy subsidies _and_ for every fossil fuel subsidy, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of very costly "environmental" regulations. And still fossil fuels and nuclear power create exponentially more energy for a fraction of the price of "green" technologies.


----------



## westwall

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> World oil production is over 90 million barrels a day.
> How much of that falls under your "federal lease give away" scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of it in this country.  Other sweetheart deals in other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most? How many barrels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> around 2 million barrels per day
> 
> Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.*
> 
> Oil is weak because investors made it cheap.
Click to expand...











Wrong, it is weak because there is tons of it.  And it is cheap to produce.  At least 50% of the cost of a barrel of oil is due to speculators.  Investors RAISE the price, not decrease it.


----------



## OnePercenter

westwall said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My property in San Diego (Coronado) receives 93% of electricity (including my car) used via solar. Still have 21 years on the warranty.
> 
> According to Republicans in Nevada, solar should only be for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a word.  Bullshit.  You would have to have over an acre of solar panels to attain that percentage.  My wifes family is from La Jolla, we know the area well.  You are simply full of crap.
Click to expand...


*In a word.  Bullshit.  You would have to have over an acre of solar panels to attain that percentage.  My wifes family is from La Jolla, we know the area well.  You are simply full of crap.*

Then you should have the numbers so why don't you post them.


----------



## OnePercenter

westwall said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.*
> 
> How much will it cost when mass produced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even more than fossil fuels.  I guess you missed the part where it takes fossil fuel (vast amounts of it) to MAKE bio fuel.  How can you miss that part?
Click to expand...


*Even more than fossil fuels.  I guess you missed the part where it takes fossil fuel (vast amounts of it) to MAKE bio fuel.  How can you miss that part?*

How much more? Let's see the numbers.


----------



## Agit8r

OnePercenter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.*
> 
> How much will it cost when mass produced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even more than fossil fuels.  I guess you missed the part where it takes fossil fuel (vast amounts of it) to MAKE bio fuel.  How can you miss that part?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Even more than fossil fuels.  I guess you missed the part where it takes fossil fuel (vast amounts of it) to MAKE bio fuel.  How can you miss that part?*
> 
> How much more? Let's see the numbers.
Click to expand...


Obviously it takes some to extract and refine fuels of any sort.  But would be interesting to see how they compare... if anyone has that data.


----------



## OnePercenter

westwall said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of it in this country.  Other sweetheart deals in other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most? How many barrels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> around 2 million barrels per day
> 
> Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.*
> 
> Oil is weak because investors made it cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, it is weak because there is tons of it.  And it is cheap to produce.  At least 50% of the cost of a barrel of oil is due to speculators.  Investors RAISE the price, not decrease it.
Click to expand...


There's difference between investors and speculators? Really? I'll alert the media!

Buy low, sell high. It doesn't really matter how it gets low....does it? Market manipulation, especially in commodities is an ever present norm.

Look at natural gas. Players manipulate lower prices to squeeze out competitive fuel sources (coal), blame the EPA, then raise the prices for higher return.


----------



## westwall

OnePercenter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My property in San Diego (Coronado) receives 93% of electricity (including my car) used via solar. Still have 21 years on the warranty.
> 
> According to Republicans in Nevada, solar should only be for the rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a word.  Bullshit.  You would have to have over an acre of solar panels to attain that percentage.  My wifes family is from La Jolla, we know the area well.  You are simply full of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In a word.  Bullshit.  You would have to have over an acre of solar panels to attain that percentage.  My wifes family is from La Jolla, we know the area well.  You are simply full of crap.*
> 
> Then you should have the numbers so why don't you post them.
Click to expand...











You just responded to them silly boy.


----------



## westwall

OnePercenter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, they are cheap to produce because they are cheap to produce.  They are also efficient as hell.  Take a look at Branson and his effort to push bio jet fuel.  It costs 38 bucks a gallon compared to 5 bucks for regular jet fuel.  Only a moron would think it is smart to spend that much on fuel.  Especially when it is realized that MORE fossil fuel was expended in producing that bio fuel, than is being replaced by that bio fuel.*
> 
> How much will it cost when mass produced?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even more than fossil fuels.  I guess you missed the part where it takes fossil fuel (vast amounts of it) to MAKE bio fuel.  How can you miss that part?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Even more than fossil fuels.  I guess you missed the part where it takes fossil fuel (vast amounts of it) to MAKE bio fuel.  How can you miss that part?*
> 
> How much more? Let's see the numbers.
Click to expand...













Poor silly man.  You really do not know a damned thing do you....


Food for fuel: The price of ethanol | NECSI
Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One


*Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One*


----------



## westwall

OnePercenter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most? How many barrels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> around 2 million barrels per day
> 
> Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.*
> 
> Oil is weak because investors made it cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, it is weak because there is tons of it.  And it is cheap to produce.  At least 50% of the cost of a barrel of oil is due to speculators.  Investors RAISE the price, not decrease it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's difference between investors and speculators? Really? I'll alert the media!
> 
> Buy low, sell high. It doesn't really matter how it gets low....does it? Market manipulation, especially in commodities is an ever present norm.
> 
> Look at natural gas. Players manipulate lower prices to squeeze out competitive fuel sources (coal), blame the EPA, then raise the prices for higher return.
Click to expand...









Natural gas is cheap because they recently found bazillions of tons of it.  It is ridiculously cheap to produce, *and transport,  *and it is thermally efficient.  None of which bio fuels are.  Like I said skippy, you don't the slightest bit about what you speak.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

westwall said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> around 2 million barrels per day
> 
> Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.*
> 
> Oil is weak because investors made it cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, it is weak because there is tons of it.  And it is cheap to produce.  At least 50% of the cost of a barrel of oil is due to speculators.  Investors RAISE the price, not decrease it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's difference between investors and speculators? Really? I'll alert the media!
> 
> Buy low, sell high. It doesn't really matter how it gets low....does it? Market manipulation, especially in commodities is an ever present norm.
> 
> Look at natural gas. Players manipulate lower prices to squeeze out competitive fuel sources (coal), blame the EPA, then raise the prices for higher return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural gas is cheap because they recently found bazillions of tons of it.  It is ridiculously cheap to produce, *and transport,  *and it is thermally efficient.  None of which bio fuels are.  Like I said skippy, you don't the slightest bit about what you speak.
Click to expand...


He is a moron.


----------



## Mr. H.

Agit8r said:


> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.


Care to back that up? I happen to think you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Mr. H.

Toddsterpatriot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.*
> 
> Oil is weak because investors made it cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, it is weak because there is tons of it.  And it is cheap to produce.  At least 50% of the cost of a barrel of oil is due to speculators.  Investors RAISE the price, not decrease it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's difference between investors and speculators? Really? I'll alert the media!
> 
> Buy low, sell high. It doesn't really matter how it gets low....does it? Market manipulation, especially in commodities is an ever present norm.
> 
> Look at natural gas. Players manipulate lower prices to squeeze out competitive fuel sources (coal), blame the EPA, then raise the prices for higher return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural gas is cheap because they recently found bazillions of tons of it.  It is ridiculously cheap to produce, *and transport,  *and it is thermally efficient.  None of which bio fuels are.  Like I said skippy, you don't the slightest bit about what you speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is a moron.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mr. H. said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So 2 million out of over 90 million is the only reason oil is so cheap?
> Your math is weak.*
> 
> Oil is weak because investors made it cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, it is weak because there is tons of it.  And it is cheap to produce.  At least 50% of the cost of a barrel of oil is due to speculators.  Investors RAISE the price, not decrease it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's difference between investors and speculators? Really? I'll alert the media!
> 
> Buy low, sell high. It doesn't really matter how it gets low....does it? Market manipulation, especially in commodities is an ever present norm.
> 
> Look at natural gas. Players manipulate lower prices to squeeze out competitive fuel sources (coal), blame the EPA, then raise the prices for higher return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural gas is cheap because they recently found bazillions of tons of it.  It is ridiculously cheap to produce, *and transport,  *and it is thermally efficient.  None of which bio fuels are.  Like I said skippy, you don't the slightest bit about what you speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.
Click to expand...


And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.


----------



## Manonthestreet

*Stamp-Size Gravity Meter Could Have Big Impact On Oil Exploration Stamp-Size Gravity Meter Could Have Big Impact On Oil Exploration - IEEE Spectrum*


----------



## Mr. H.

"Green" energy could not exist without the input of hydrocarbons. 

Oh.
The.
Fucking.
Irony.


----------



## Mr. H.

Face it. You are all fucked without hydrocarbons. All this "green" and "alternative" bullshit isn't going anywhere without the input of either crude oil or natural gas as feedstock to your folly. 

Fuck you, motherfuckers.


----------



## Old Rocks

Rottweiler said:


> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy




World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy

The world's largest renewable energy developer, SunEdison, may be on the verge of filing for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that it is reportedly being investigated for overstating its financial stability

READ NOW
*SunEdison has had an aggressive acquisition history, but those buyouts have left it with $11 billion in debt, Reuters reported.*

"SunEdison is having more than its share of troubles," Deutsche Bank wrote in an announcement that it was suspending its ratings of both SunEdison and its subsidiary, TerraForm Global.

TerraForm Global announced its 10K filing would be delayed due to SunEdison's financial reporting issues. TerraForm's annual report was to be filed by Wednesday.

*Nothing to do with renewable energy, but with the management biting off more than it can chew.*


----------



## percysunshine

Old Rocks said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> The world's largest renewable energy developer, SunEdison, may be on the verge of filing for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that it is reportedly being investigated for overstating its financial stability
> 
> READ NOW
> *SunEdison has had an aggressive acquisition history, but those buyouts have left it with $11 billion in debt, Reuters reported.*
> 
> "SunEdison is having more than its share of troubles," Deutsche Bank wrote in an announcement that it was suspending its ratings of both SunEdison and its subsidiary, TerraForm Global.
> 
> TerraForm Global announced its 10K filing would be delayed due to SunEdison's financial reporting issues. TerraForm's annual report was to be filed by Wednesday.
> 
> *Nothing to do with renewable energy, but with the management biting off more than it can chew.*
Click to expand...



Shit happens.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> The world's largest renewable energy developer, SunEdison, may be on the verge of filing for bankruptcy protection after it was revealed that it is reportedly being investigated for overstating its financial stability
> 
> READ NOW
> *SunEdison has had an aggressive acquisition history, but those buyouts have left it with $11 billion in debt, Reuters reported.*
> 
> "SunEdison is having more than its share of troubles," Deutsche Bank wrote in an announcement that it was suspending its ratings of both SunEdison and its subsidiary, TerraForm Global.
> 
> TerraForm Global announced its 10K filing would be delayed due to SunEdison's financial reporting issues. TerraForm's annual report was to be filed by Wednesday.
> 
> *Nothing to do with renewable energy, but with the management biting off more than it can chew.*
Click to expand...








No, it's like some guy telling you he will sell something for 98 cents, but it costs him a buck....he'll make it up on volume!  That's the problem with renewables.  They ALL (with the exception of hydroelectric, and geothermal) are losers. Scaled up beyond single point users and they fail.


----------



## Old Rocks

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

*According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.*

*Both wind and solar have come down in price since this was published. Mr. Westwall, your posts are pure bullshit.*


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, it is weak because there is tons of it.  And it is cheap to produce.  At least 50% of the cost of a barrel of oil is due to speculators.  Investors RAISE the price, not decrease it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's difference between investors and speculators? Really? I'll alert the media!
> 
> Buy low, sell high. It doesn't really matter how it gets low....does it? Market manipulation, especially in commodities is an ever present norm.
> 
> Look at natural gas. Players manipulate lower prices to squeeze out competitive fuel sources (coal), blame the EPA, then raise the prices for higher return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural gas is cheap because they recently found bazillions of tons of it.  It is ridiculously cheap to produce, *and transport,  *and it is thermally efficient.  None of which bio fuels are.  Like I said skippy, you don't the slightest bit about what you speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.
Click to expand...


As does Walmart.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's difference between investors and speculators? Really? I'll alert the media!
> 
> Buy low, sell high. It doesn't really matter how it gets low....does it? Market manipulation, especially in commodities is an ever present norm.
> 
> Look at natural gas. Players manipulate lower prices to squeeze out competitive fuel sources (coal), blame the EPA, then raise the prices for higher return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural gas is cheap because they recently found bazillions of tons of it.  It is ridiculously cheap to produce, *and transport,  *and it is thermally efficient.  None of which bio fuels are.  Like I said skippy, you don't the slightest bit about what you speak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As does Walmart.
Click to expand...


Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural gas is cheap because they recently found bazillions of tons of it.  It is ridiculously cheap to produce, *and transport,  *and it is thermally efficient.  None of which bio fuels are.  Like I said skippy, you don't the slightest bit about what you speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As does Walmart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.
Click to expand...


*Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.*

You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan. 

What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As does Walmart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.*
> 
> You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.
> 
> What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.
Click to expand...


No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues. 

*What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.*

WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.

*I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.*

Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Well he's a moron with two Teslas, bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As does Walmart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.*
> 
> You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.
> 
> What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.
> 
> *What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.*
> 
> WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.
> 
> *I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.*
> 
> Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.
Click to expand...


*WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make*.

No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.

*Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.*

It's not being deceptive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And he pays a single digit tax rate on his millions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As does Walmart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.*
> 
> You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.
> 
> What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.
> 
> *What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.*
> 
> WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.
> 
> *I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.*
> 
> Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make*.
> 
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> 
> *Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.*
> 
> It's not being deceptive.
Click to expand...

*
No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
*
And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.

*It's not being deceptive.
*
It's not a useful comparison.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> As does Walmart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.*
> 
> You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.
> 
> What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.
> 
> *What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.*
> 
> WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.
> 
> *I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.*
> 
> Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make*.
> 
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> 
> *Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.*
> 
> It's not being deceptive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> *
> And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.
> 
> *It's not being deceptive.
> *
> It's not a useful comparison.
Click to expand...


*And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.*

If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.*
> 
> You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.
> 
> What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.
> 
> *What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.*
> 
> WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.
> 
> *I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.*
> 
> Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make*.
> 
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> 
> *Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.*
> 
> It's not being deceptive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> *
> And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.
> 
> *It's not being deceptive.
> *
> It's not a useful comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.*
> 
> If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.
Click to expand...

*
Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.
*
Your idiocy dictates that.
*
Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS*

Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, your insistence that corporations should be taxed on revenue instead of profit is funny.*
> 
> You seem confused. That's my $23.50/hr minimum wage plan.
> 
> What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%. I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.
> 
> *What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.*
> 
> WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.
> 
> *I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.*
> 
> Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make*.
> 
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> 
> *Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.*
> 
> It's not being deceptive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> *
> And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.
> 
> *It's not being deceptive.
> *
> It's not a useful comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.*
> 
> If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.
> *
> Your idiocy dictates that.
> *
> Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS*
> 
> Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.
Click to expand...


*Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.*

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your stupid plan is independent of your stupid belief that effective tax rates should be calculated by dividing taxes paid by revenues.
> 
> *What the writing is of percentage of federal tax of total revenue. Walmart is 3%.*
> 
> WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make.
> 
> *I'll bet your percentage of federal tax of total income in 12% to 15%.*
> 
> Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make*.
> 
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> 
> *Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.*
> 
> It's not being deceptive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> *
> And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.
> 
> *It's not being deceptive.
> *
> It's not a useful comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.*
> 
> If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.
> *
> Your idiocy dictates that.
> *
> Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS*
> 
> Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.*
> 
> No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
Click to expand...



Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.*

No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.*

The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WalMart's net income is 3% of revenue. By your metric, the government gets half what they make*.
> 
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> 
> *Comparing an individual's gross income to a corporation's revenue is how we know you're an idiot.*
> 
> It's not being deceptive.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> *
> And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.
> 
> *It's not being deceptive.
> *
> It's not a useful comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.*
> 
> If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.
> *
> Your idiocy dictates that.
> *
> Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS*
> 
> Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.*
> 
> No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.
> *
> No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.*
> 
> The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.
Click to expand...


*The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.*

Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, I wrote Walmart pays 3% of their total revenue in ALL taxes.
> *
> And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.
> 
> *It's not being deceptive.
> *
> It's not a useful comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.*
> 
> If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.
> *
> Your idiocy dictates that.
> *
> Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS*
> 
> Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.*
> 
> No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.
> *
> No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.*
> 
> The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.*
> 
> Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
Click to expand...

*
Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
*
For the fiscal year ending in January 2016, WalMart paid 1.36% of revenues for their corporate income tax.
As an individual, I don't have revenue and I'm not subject to corporate tax rates.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And I wrote that since businesses are taxed on profits, not revenues, it's stupid to talk about their income tax in relation to their revenues.*
> 
> If you want to be deceptive. Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue. Business actually pay very little of the total in tax. Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS, that makes me correct. btw; that includes the top one percent.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.
> *
> Your idiocy dictates that.
> *
> Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS*
> 
> Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.*
> 
> No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.
> *
> No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.*
> 
> The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.*
> 
> Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
> *
> For the fiscal year ending in January 2016, WalMart paid 1.36% of revenues for their corporate income tax.
> As an individual, I don't have revenue and I'm not subject to corporate tax rates.
Click to expand...


*For the fiscal year ending in January 2016, WalMart paid 1.36% of revenues for their corporate income tax.*

So we agree.......corporations aren't overly taxed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Apples and oranges dictates you use tax ÷ total income/revenue.
> *
> Your idiocy dictates that.
> *
> Business only accounts 12% of the total collected by the IRS*
> 
> Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.*
> 
> No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wages and salaries are much higher than corporate profit.
> *
> No, Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.*
> 
> The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The dollar amount of salaries in the economy are much higher than the dollar amount of corporate profit.*
> 
> Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Walmart paid 3% and you and yours paid 12% to 15%.
> *
> For the fiscal year ending in January 2016, WalMart paid 1.36% of revenues for their corporate income tax.
> As an individual, I don't have revenue and I'm not subject to corporate tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *For the fiscal year ending in January 2016, WalMart paid 1.36% of revenues for their corporate income tax.*
> 
> So we agree.......corporations aren't overly taxed.
Click to expand...


It's true, WalMart pays a much higher tax rate than I do.


----------



## P@triot

And the failures (of both the "green" energy sector and of government betting on losers) continues. It's no wonder we're $19 trillion in debt, suffering from record unemployment numbers, and suffering record numbers on food stamps.

*"A Spanish solar energy company benefiting from $191 million in financing from the Export-Import Bank declared bankruptcy last month, calling into question whether the embattled agency will see repayment of the tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans on its balance sheets.

Abengoa, which operates worldwide, filed for Chapter 15 bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., and has until the end of October to restructure its $16.4 billion of debt."*

After Receiving Taxpayer-Backed Loans, Solar Company Files for Bankruptcy


----------



## Old Rocks

26 coal companies in the US have filed for bankruptcy. And more on the way. 

China decreased it's use of coal by 3% in 2014.

http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/US-coal-designed-Web.pdf


----------



## P@triot

And the hits just keep on coming....

_the radical leftwing environmentalists took control. These are people who care more about the supposed rise of the oceans than the financial survival of the middle class. The industrial unions made a catastrophic decision to get in bed with these radicals and now they—and all of us—are paying a heavy price._


_The latest evidence came last week when another coal giant in America, Peabody Energy Corp., declared bankruptcy. This is the same fate suffered by Arch Coal Inc., Alpha Natural Resources Inc., and other coal producers that have filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors.

The Green War Against the Working Class_


----------



## P@triot

Another prime example of the unsustainability of the "green" energy farce....

*The death Of American Coal*

There was a time in America - and it wasn't even so long ago - that liberals actually cared about working class people. They may have been misguided in many of their policy solutions - i.e., raising the minimum wage - but at least their heart was in the right place.

Then a strange thing happened about a decade ago. The radical left wing environmentalists took control of the Democratic Party. These are crazies who care more about the supposed rise of the oceans than the financial survival of the middle class. The industrial unions made a catastrophic decision to get in bed with these radicals and now they - and all of us - are paying a heavy price.

STEPHEN MOORE: The death of American coal


----------



## mamooth

Are you also upset about the loss of jobs in buggy whip factories?

Coal mining employs few people now. It's not the 1950's. It's an insignificant sector of the economy now. Hence, the buggy whip thing is a good comparison. That is, if the buggy whips were a pollution nightmare as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mamooth said:


> Are you also upset about the loss of jobs in buggy whip factories?
> 
> Coal mining employs few people now. It's not the 1950's. It's an insignificant sector of the economy now. Hence, the buggy whip thing is a good comparison. That is, if the buggy whips were a pollution nightmare as well.



*Coal mining employs few people now. It's not the 1950's. It's an insignificant sector of the economy now. Hence, the buggy whip thing is a good comparison.*

Coal generated 33% of US electricity last year. Solar 0.6%. Wind 4.7%.

That "buggy whip" produced more than 6 times the electricity of solar and wind combined.
Only a moron would think a buggy whip is a good comparison.


----------



## mamooth

So you're going to cling to that dying technology to the bitter end?

So be it. Not anyone else's problem.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mamooth said:


> So you're going to cling to that dying technology to the bitter end?
> 
> So be it. Not anyone else's problem.



*What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?*
In 2015, the United States generated about 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity.1  About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum).

Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015:1 


Coal = 33%
Natural gas = 33%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.6%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.6%
Wind = 4.7%

Petroleum = 1%
Other gases = <1%


What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


----------



## elektra

You can not make a Wind Turbine without drilling for Oil. You make more Wind Turbines, you need to drill for more oil. Wind Turbine manufacturer is a new use, a new demand for Oil. Wind Turbines are not sustainable, they demand an increase in Oil production.

To save the World we must destroy it.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> So you're going to cling to that dying technology to the bitter end?
> 
> So be it. Not anyone else's problem.


So you're going to make up shit as you go mamooth - then try to change the subject when your astounding ignorance is exposed for everyone to see? The fact that you don't even know how significant coal is on our energy sector means you are not qualified to be speaking about energy at all. But you never were one to let ignorance stop you from jumping in on a conversation, uh?

The _only_ thing "dying" is the "green energy" farce. Solyndra was illegally handed *$500 million* from the federal government and they _still_ went out of business. How the frick can you fail with $500 million free from someone?!?! It's literally _impossible_ unless you have a failed product that nobody wants. So please....tell me which one is "dying". _Idiot_.


----------



## P@triot

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're going to cling to that dying technology to the bitter end?
> 
> So be it. Not anyone else's problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?*
> In 2015, the United States generated about 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity.1  About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum).
> 
> Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015:1
> 
> 
> Coal = 33%
> Natural gas = 33%
> Nuclear = 20%
> Hydropower = 6%
> Other renewables = 7%
> Biomass = 1.6%
> Geothermal = 0.4%
> Solar = 0.6%
> Wind = 4.7%
> 
> Petroleum = 1%
> Other gases = <1%
> 
> 
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Click to expand...

The "genius" formerly known as mamooth believes that the #1 source of energy "employs few people" and is a "dying technology". Every single day, liberals _still_ find ways to amaze me with their astounding ignorance. You can tell they never turn off MSNBC and never go to any site other than Salon.com. They don't question their leaders. They don't do research. They are simply lazy parasites parroting whatever their masters spoon feed them.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> So you're going to cling to that dying technology to the bitter end?
> 
> So be it. Not anyone else's problem.



Here is a basic question (we need to dumb this down to the liberals level). If coal is (and I quote) a "dying technology" why do liberals in government feel the need to try to put it out of business? Won't it just go out of business on it's own if it is "dying"? Furthermore, if coal is "dying" then that opens up a massive hole in energy needs to fill. With such a great opportunity, why does government need to throw hundreds of billions of dollars every single year to the "green" energy sector to keep it afloat?

Because the truth is - the "green" energy sector is a failed concept which can't sustain itself at all (and even billionaire "green energy" supporters like Bill Gates refuse to put their _own_ money into it because they know the money simply disappears with nothing to show for it). If liberals have to illegally take tax payer money to help one industry, and have to intentionally try to bankrupt another with regulations designed to bankrupt it, it's very clear which is the industry that is "dying".


----------



## P@triot

More indisputable evidence of the unsustainability of "green" energy...

"Free enterprise will spur the next energy revolution, just as it has the latest oil and gas revolution that’s lowering the cost of living for Americans. Competition will provide incremental improvements in energy, for conventional natural resources and for renewable technologies.

As energy prices rise and fall, markets respond accordingly. Higher prices at the pump, for instance, incentivize companies to extract more oil and invest in technologies to produce the oil more cheaply and efficiently. Higher prices encourage exploration into alternative power sources for vehicles, whether it is biofuels, batteries, natural gas, or something entirely different."


How Washington Politicians Wasted Billions Trying to ‘Invest in Our Future’


----------



## elektra

Rottweiler said:


> The "genius" formerly known as mamooth believes that the #1 source of energy "employs few people" and is a "dying technology". Every single day, liberals _still_ find ways to amaze me with their astounding ignorance. You can tell they never turn off MSNBC and never go to any site other than Salon.com. They don't question their leaders. They don't do research. They are simply lazy parasites parroting whatever their masters spoon feed them.


I like to call, he/she, maMOOT, its points are moot.


----------



## mamooth

Rotty's getting obsessed. I believe the reason is "butthurt over being humiliated".

So first Rotty whines about coal companies going bankrupt. Then he whines it's not a dying industry. And doesn't see the contradiction.

About 75,000 people work in the coal industry. Over a million now work in renewable energy. Rotty wants to toss that million out of work to save the 75,000.

The number has coal workers been dropping steadily since the 1950s, no matter who was in office. All those coal jobs lost under Republican presidents? Rotty doesn't care. He'll blame it on the liberals somehow.

Poor Rotty. His beloved coal industry can't survive without having its polluting externalities subsidized. The gubmint is finally removing those subsidies, so Rotty is throwing a socialist fit over the free market working its magic. No Rotty, you may not have more subsidies just because you whine about them.


----------



## elektra

mamooth said:


> Rotty's getting obsessed. I believe the reason is "butthurt over being humiliated".
> 
> So first Rotty whines about coal companies going bankrupt. Then he whines it's not a dying industry. And doesn't see the contradiction.
> 
> About 75,000 people work in the coal industry. Over a million now work in renewable energy. Rotty wants to toss that million out of work to save the 75,000.
> 
> The number has coal workers been dropping steadily since the 1950s, no matter who was in office. All those coal jobs lost under Republican presidents? Rotty doesn't care. He'll blame it on the liberals somehow.
> 
> Poor Rotty. His beloved coal industry can't survive without having its polluting externalities subsidized. The gubmint is finally removing those subsidies, so Rotty is throwing a socialist fit over the free market working its magic. No Rotty, you may not have more subsidies just because you whine about them.


You can't build the Renewable Energy without Coal, so those 75,000 are working for the Renewable Energy Industry.


----------



## elektra

According to Moot, it takes 1,000,000 people to make 1% of the USA's power if it is Renewable Energy funded by the government, but it takes only 75,000 to make 40% of the USA's power from Coal. 

I guess once we employ 40,000,000 people in Solar and Wind, we will have replaced those 75,000 coal workers.


----------



## mamooth

According to Mamooth, you're lying about what I supposedly said, because you couldn't address what I actually said.

Now, if you'd like to address what I actually said, give it a try. Should I go over my points again, maybe in smaller words to help you out? Let me know specifically what it was that confused you so much. After all, my mission is use the light of reason to banish the darkness of your barbarism.

Oh, until you address me politely, I'll be referring to you as "pissguzzler". Remember pissguzzler, I return the respect I'm given. If you can't act like a grownup, then I get to have fun making you cry.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> Rotty's getting obsessed. I believe the reason is "butthurt over being humiliated".
> 
> So first Rotty whines about coal companies going bankrupt. Then he whines it's not a dying industry. And doesn't see the contradiction.
> 
> About 75,000 people work in the coal industry. Over a million now work in renewable energy. Rotty wants to toss that million out of work to save the 75,000.
> 
> The number has coal workers been dropping steadily since the 1950s, no matter who was in office. All those coal jobs lost under Republican presidents? Rotty doesn't care. He'll blame it on the liberals somehow.
> 
> Poor Rotty. His beloved coal industry can't survive without having its polluting externalities subsidized. The gubmint is finally removing those subsidies, so Rotty is throwing a socialist fit over the free market working its magic. No Rotty, you may not have more subsidies just because you whine about them.


Mammy got whipped so bad with facts that she has to resort to personal insults. Typical.

Coal mining isn't "going bankrupt" nor did I ever say that. Nice straw man. The fact that you have to lie about what I said is proof that you've been defeated. So I'll ask the same two dumbed-down just for liberals questions again that you are clearly too afraid to address:

Why is Hillary Clinton and other libtards threatening to bankrupt the coal industry with regulations if it's "dying" on it's own?

If "over a million people" (clearly a bullshit claim since you have no link to back up your lie), why does the government need to spend hundreds of billions to keep it from collapsing?!? 
I can understand you fear in addressing these simple questions as they really illustrate the absurdity of your position. But if you do find the courage - let me know.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> According to Mamooth, you're lying about what I supposedly said, because you couldn't address what I actually said.
> 
> Now, if you'd like to address what I actually said, give it a try. Should I go over my points again, maybe in smaller words to help you out? Let me know specifically what it was that confused you so much. After all, my mission is use the light of reason to banish the darkness of your barbarism.
> 
> Oh, until you address me politely, I'll be referring to you as "pissguzzler". Remember pissguzzler, I return the respect I'm given. If you can't act like a grownup, then I get to have fun making you cry.


He just _completely_ bent you over and made you his bitch... You've got nowhere to go after he used your own logic to _destroy_ your absurd position.


----------



## P@triot

elektra said:


> According to Moot, it takes 1,000,000 people to make 1% of the USA's power if it is Renewable Energy funded by the government, but it takes only 75,000 to make 40% of the USA's power from Coal.
> 
> I guess once we employ 40,000,000 people in Solar and Wind, we will have replaced those 75,000 coal workers.



I salute you sir. Basic math is *not* the strong point of liberals. Then again, neither is basic economics. Or basic business. Or basic civics. Or basic history. Or....well...you get the idea.


----------



## mamooth

Great. Rotty's gone stalker-bitch on me. I seem to collect weepy obsessed stalker bitches.



Rottweiler said:


> Mammy got whipped so bad with facts that she has to resort to personal insults. Typical.



So, you fling insults, then whine about insults. That is, you're a whiner and a hypocrite, a really winning combo.

Obviously, I fling insults too. Difference is, I'm good at it, and I don't whine about getting it back. You need to learn that crying at me only encourages me, because it shows me I've hit a sore spot, and therefore I should keep punching there.



> Coal mining isn't "going bankrupt" nor did I ever say that. Nice straw man.



I didn't say you said that. Nice lie.



> The fact that you have to lie about what I said is proof that you've been defeated.



I said "first Rotty whines about coal companies going bankrupt"

In post #62, you  whined about two coal companies going bankrupt, just as I said.

Enjoy eating that big heapin' pile of shit, now that you've been busted for lying.



> So I'll ask the same two dumbed-down just for liberals questions again that you are clearly too afraid to address:



I answered 'em directly. Well, at least the one that wasn't a dishonest strawman. But being you are who you are, you cut and ran. Same old same old.



> Why is Hillary Clinton and other libtards threatening to bankrupt the coal industry with regulations if it's "dying" on it's own?



And I pointed out that the coal industry relies on socialist subsidies of its pollution externalities, and that making them pay for those externalities is good capitalism. Must have been the capitalism thing that got you so angry.



> If "over a million people" (clearly a bullshit claim since you have no link to back up your lie), why does the government need to spend hundreds of billions to keep it from collapsing?!?



Government doesn't. You just made up a dishonest strawman. Why don't you try asking an honest question? Oh, that's right, you're not capable of it.

Now, if your phrased your question more honestly, I'd point out the free market sucks balls at long term planning. Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.



> I can understand you fear in addressing these simple questions as they really illustrate the absurdity of your position. But if you do find the courage - let me know.



I understand you're my sweet sweet little bitch now. I think everyone understands that. If you can locate your testicles, try giving some honest answers, instead of just crying at me harder.


----------



## elektra

mamooth said:


> According to Mamooth, you're lying about what I supposedly said, because you couldn't address what I actually said.
> 
> Now, if you'd like to address what I actually said, give it a try. Should I go over my points again, maybe in smaller words to help you out? Let me know specifically what it was that confused you so much. After all, my mission is use the light of reason to banish the darkness of your barbarism.
> 
> Oh, until you address me politely, I'll be referring to you as "pissguzzler". Remember pissguzzler, I return the respect I'm given. If you can't act like a grownup, then I get to have fun making you cry.


wow, great post MOOT, "piss guzzler"? Water sports? How come all you liberal nutcakes are also sexual perverts? Intellectually I would think you were smart enough to be above bathroom humor, you certainly portray yourself as being smart. Now am I pissguzzler or someone else. 

Yes, go over your points again, MOOT, in smaller words, quote the original, and then put them in smaller words, hopefully everyone encourages you to use smaller words, cause this will be great. 

Go ahead MOOT, go over your points, in smaller words!


----------



## elektra

Rottweiler said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rotty's getting obsessed. I believe the reason is "butthurt over being humiliated".
> 
> So first Rotty whines about coal companies going bankrupt. Then he whines it's not a dying industry. And doesn't see the contradiction.
> 
> About 75,000 people work in the coal industry. Over a million now work in renewable energy. Rotty wants to toss that million out of work to save the 75,000.
> 
> The number has coal workers been dropping steadily since the 1950s, no matter who was in office. All those coal jobs lost under Republican presidents? Rotty doesn't care. He'll blame it on the liberals somehow.
> 
> Poor Rotty. His beloved coal industry can't survive without having its polluting externalities subsidized. The gubmint is finally removing those subsidies, so Rotty is throwing a socialist fit over the free market working its magic. No Rotty, you may not have more subsidies just because you whine about them.
> 
> 
> 
> Mammy got whipped so bad with facts that she has to resort to personal insults. Typical.
> 
> Coal mining isn't "going bankrupt" nor did I ever say that. Nice straw man. The fact that you have to lie about what I said is proof that you've been defeated. So I'll ask the same two dumbed-down just for liberals questions again that you are clearly too afraid to address:
> 
> Why is Hillary Clinton and other libtards threatening to bankrupt the coal industry with regulations if it's "dying" on it's own?
> 
> If "over a million people" (clearly a bullshit claim since you have no link to back up your lie), why does the government need to spend hundreds of billions to keep it from collapsing?!?
> I can understand you fear in addressing these simple questions as they really illustrate the absurdity of your position. But if you do find the courage - let me know.
Click to expand...

Take MOOT up on the smaller word thing, I would love to see MOOT use smaller words.


----------



## P@triot

Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by six to one in Logan Co., W.V., CNN pointed out, but the residents are outraged over Clinton’s call to eradicate the coal industry.

“It was not easy here to randomly find people here who want Hillary Clinton for president,” CNN reported, adding that out of the nearly 20 random Democrats they interviewed, nearly all of them were already supporting Trump.

CNN Struggles to Find Democrat Not Voting Trump


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rottweiler said:


> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy



One day green energy might just be more efficient. 

You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> Now, if your phrased your question more honestly, I'd point out the free market sucks balls at long term planning. Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism.



"Piss guzzler" and "sucks balls"? So we've established that your immature, homosexual, and extraordinarily sexually deviant. Probably get erections thinking about mommy like Bill Clinton does - uh? Yeah...you are the _textbook_ libtard.

Former Clinton Mistress: Bill’s Sexual Fantasies Inspired by His Mother

Now...for the mature, intelligent people on USMB (you're eliminated so don't panic) - the free market has driven "long term planning" since the beginning of the U.S. For instance, both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates believed that one day, every single home would have a computer in it. Most people laughed at them. The government did *not* subsidize them and they manufactured the _future_. The same can be said for electricity, the telephone, the cell phone, and pretty much every thing that has made the U.S. the most advanced nation in the world.

Furthermore, even if your outrageously false claims were true (and in typical libtard fashion you literally just make stuff up because you're too lazy to do any research or leaner anything), the U.S. Constitution does *not* authorize the federal government to "steer capitalism" or engage in "long term planning" for the private sector. Further _still_, it is *not* authorized to engage in anything related to energy development.

But, you have no idea how your government is designed, how it functions, or what its responsibilities are. Bet you could write an encyclopedia though about drinking the pee of other men or dressing in mommy's thongs and bra's though. Typical liberal.


----------



## P@triot

frigidweirdo said:


> *One day green energy might just be more efficient.*
> 
> You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.



Absolutely. And I _hope_ one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> Poor Rotty. His beloved coal industry can't survive without having its polluting externalities subsidized. The gubmint is finally removing those subsidies, so Rotty is throwing a socialist fit over the free market working its magic. No Rotty, you may not have more subsidies just because you whine about them.



Half a *billion* dollars (since you can't handle basic math - that is $500 million) just to Solyndra _alone_. And it _still_ couldn't say afloat. Declared bankruptcy and closed its doors.

Poor maMOOT - doesn't understand the meaning of words but throws them around anyway in a _desperate_ attempt to _sound_ "intelligent".

The regulations were created specifically to bankrupt and end the coal industry because the "green" industry can't compete with them. They get hundreds of billions from government and they still have to keep closing their doors. Creating regulations designed specifically to eliminate an industry is not "removing a subsidy" (which never existed). But....one would have to know what the word "subsidy" means to understand that. And how could maMOOT have time for education when it takes a while to dress up in mommy's clothes and flip through homosexual magazines which focus on sexually deviant behaviors like ingesting urine??? And yes...Moot really did make reference to his affection for that kind of disgusting stuff above (just scroll up).


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rottweiler said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One day green energy might just be more efficient.*
> 
> You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And I _hope_ one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.
Click to expand...


But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.



Well most of us aren't familiar with communist philosophers whose views are irrelevant (good work asking an adult for help though!). See, we subscribe to what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin taught - that the federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers and "energy development" is *not* one of them. Neither is "steering capitalism". Nor is "long term planning".

But being that you spend all of your time reading underground sexually deviant publications that specialize in human waste and mommy fantasies, no one is shocked that you've never read the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rottweiler said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well most of us aren't familiar with communist philosophers whose views are irrelevant (good work asking an adult for help though!). See, we subscribe to what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin taught - that the federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers and "energy development" is *not* one of them. Neither is "steering capitalism". Nor is "long term planning".
> 
> But being that you spend all of your time reading underground sexually deviant publications that specialize in human waste and mommy fantasies, no one is shocked that you've never read the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...


Neither was invading Iraq.....


----------



## P@triot

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One day green energy might just be more efficient.*
> 
> You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And I _hope_ one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.
Click to expand...


Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.

Defense contractors are *not* subsidized nor have they _ever_ been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.


----------



## P@triot

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well most of us aren't familiar with communist philosophers whose views are irrelevant (good work asking an adult for help though!). See, we subscribe to what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin taught - that the federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers and "energy development" is *not* one of them. Neither is "steering capitalism". Nor is "long term planning".
> 
> But being that you spend all of your time reading underground sexually deviant publications that specialize in human waste and mommy fantasies, no one is shocked that you've never read the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither was invading Iraq.....
Click to expand...

Want to bet?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rottweiler said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One day green energy might just be more efficient.*
> 
> You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And I _hope_ one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.
> 
> Defense contractors are *not* subsidized nor have they _ever_ been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.
Click to expand...


Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer. 

No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.

Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies 

How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies

"Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "

Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.

Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance. 










Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy


This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
"I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
found it to be subatantial"

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf

"In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."

But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.

Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money. 





The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.





Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?





Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it? 






Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rottweiler said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well most of us aren't familiar with communist philosophers whose views are irrelevant (good work asking an adult for help though!). See, we subscribe to what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin taught - that the federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers and "energy development" is *not* one of them. Neither is "steering capitalism". Nor is "long term planning".
> 
> But being that you spend all of your time reading underground sexually deviant publications that specialize in human waste and mommy fantasies, no one is shocked that you've never read the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither was invading Iraq.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Want to bet?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I bet you can't find the term "Iraq" in the US constitution.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One day green energy might just be more efficient.*
> 
> You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And I _hope_ one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.
Click to expand...

and there you have it, with the liberal idiot can not defend one idea, they move to the next, then the next, then the next.

You know there are other threads, a different forum for the War in Iraq, what is the matter, your argument in favor of renewable energy is, UNSUSTAINABLE?


----------



## mamooth

elektra said:


> wow, great post MOOT, "piss guzzler"? Water sports? How come all you liberal nutcakes are also sexual perverts? Intellectually I would think you were smart enough to be above bathroom humor, you certainly portray yourself as being smart. Now am I pissguzzler or someone else.
> 
> Yes, go over your points again, MOOT, in smaller words, quote the original, and then put them in smaller words, hopefully everyone encourages you to use smaller words, cause this will be great.
> 
> Go ahead MOOT, go over your points, in smaller words!



When you wrote that, pissguzzler, you were obviously intoxicated because of what you'd just guzzled.

Now, given how butthurt you get when your own tactics are turned back on you, what does that tell you about your tactics?

If you want to discuss the issues instead of crying at me, give it a try. Let's get back to what you were running from. You've been crying and deflecting for so long, it's hard to remember the topic. Oh, that's right. It's the collapse of the coal industry.

Here's coal production.






That plunge happened all on its own. Do you plan to reverse it? How? China and India have cut imports to a fraction of formal levels, and those imports will soon hit zero. Domestic demand has crashed as well. How do you propose to revive interest in a product that's not wanted? More government subsidies?


----------



## mamooth

Rottweiler said:


> Half a *billion* dollars (since you can't handle basic math - that is $500 million) just to Solyndra _alone_. And it _still_ couldn't say afloat. Declared bankruptcy and closed its doors.



And other loans being payed back put the program as a whole in black.

No wonder you're so confused here. You don't understand something as simple as banking. Some loans fail. That's made up for by the ones that don't.



> Poor maMOOT - doesn't understand the meaning of words but throws them around anyway in a _desperate_ attempt to _sound_ "intelligent".



Free advice: In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. That's why I can do it. You can't, because you're a blustering cult parrot.



> The regulations were created specifically to bankrupt and end the coal industry because the "green" industry can't compete with them.



Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ...

Now that you've descended into bizarre conspiracy rants, it's time to stop treating you like a serious adult. You're in the 'comic relief' category now.

Oh, since you're so upset about not getting a nickname, you can be "pissdrinker" if you want. Seems appropriate, given how you devoted a whole post to the topic. Or maybe you just wanted attention. That happens a lot with my stalkers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mamooth said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half a *billion* dollars (since you can't handle basic math - that is $500 million) just to Solyndra _alone_. And it _still_ couldn't say afloat. Declared bankruptcy and closed its doors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And other loans being payed back put the program as a whole in black.
> 
> No wonder you're so confused here. You don't understand something as simple as banking. Some loans fail. That's made up for by the ones that don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor maMOOT - doesn't understand the meaning of words but throws them around anyway in a _desperate_ attempt to _sound_ "intelligent".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free advice: In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. That's why I can do it. You can't, because you're a blustering cult parrot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The regulations were created specifically to bankrupt and end the coal industry because the "green" industry can't compete with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ...
> 
> Now that you've descended into bizarre conspiracy rants, it's time to stop treating you like a serious adult. You're in the 'comic relief' category now.
> 
> Oh, since you're so upset about not getting a nickname, you can be "pissdrinker" if you want. Seems appropriate, given how you devoted a whole post to the topic. Or maybe you just wanted attention. That happens a lot with my stalkers.
Click to expand...

_
You don't understand something as simple as banking. Some loans fail. That's made up for by the ones that don't._

Except in the case of these stupid green crony loans.


----------



## elektra

mamooth said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, great post MOOT, "piss guzzler"? Water sports? How come all you liberal nutcakes are also sexual perverts? Intellectually I would think you were smart enough to be above bathroom humor, you certainly portray yourself as being smart. Now am I pissguzzler or someone else.
> 
> Yes, go over your points again, MOOT, in smaller words, quote the original, and then put them in smaller words, hopefully everyone encourages you to use smaller words, cause this will be great.
> 
> Go ahead MOOT, go over your points, in smaller words!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you wrote that, pissguzzler, you were obviously intoxicated because of what you'd just guzzled.
> 
> Now, given how butthurt you get when your own tactics are turned back on you, what does that tell you about your tactics?
> 
> If you want to discuss the issues instead of crying at me, give it a try. Let's get back to what you were running from. You've been crying and deflecting for so long, it's hard to remember the topic. Oh, that's right. It's the collapse of the coal industry.
> 
> Here's coal production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That plunge happened all on its own. Do you plan to reverse it? How? China and India have cut imports to a fraction of formal levels, and those imports will soon hit zero. Domestic demand has crashed as well. How do you propose to revive interest in a product that's not wanted? More government subsidies?
Click to expand...

MOOT, you are projecting, you are PWD, Posting While Drunk. Butthurt? MOOT, you are certainly obsessed with perversion while drunk. My tactics? MOOT, you do know that you did not direct that comment at me, I just jumped into the middle. You should keep your rants against users, straight, but then again you are PWD. 

Now Moot, at least keep you word, I will gladly engage with you but you stated you would use smaller words so go back and rewrite your post with smaller words.


----------



## Old Rocks

Rottweiler said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hence, government needs to help steer capitalism. You know, like Adam Smith taught. I understand if you're not familiar with him, being you're more of a Marx guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well most of us aren't familiar with communist philosophers whose views are irrelevant (good work asking an adult for help though!). See, we subscribe to what Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin taught - that the federal government is strictly limited to 18 enumerated powers and "energy development" is *not* one of them. Neither is "steering capitalism". Nor is "long term planning".
> 
> But being that you spend all of your time reading underground sexually deviant publications that specialize in human waste and mommy fantasies, no one is shocked that you've never read the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

LOL Adam Smith, communist philosopher? LOL, Rotten, you are even stupider than I thought.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One day green energy might just be more efficient.*
> 
> You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And I _hope_ one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.
> 
> Defense contractors are *not* subsidized nor have they _ever_ been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.
> 
> No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.
> 
> Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies
> 
> How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies
> 
> "Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "
> 
> Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.
> 
> Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy
> 
> 
> This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
> "I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
> found it to be subatantial"
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf
> 
> "In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."
> 
> But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.
> 
> Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.
Click to expand...

Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits". 

Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.

General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One day green energy might just be more efficient.*
> 
> You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And I _hope_ one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.
> 
> Defense contractors are *not* subsidized nor have they _ever_ been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.
> 
> No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.
> 
> Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies
> 
> How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies
> 
> "Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "
> 
> Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.
> 
> Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy
> 
> 
> This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
> "I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
> found it to be subatantial"
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf
> 
> "In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."
> 
> But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.
> 
> Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".
> 
> Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.
> 
> General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.
Click to expand...


But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt. 

Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And I _hope_ one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.
> 
> Defense contractors are *not* subsidized nor have they _ever_ been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.
> 
> No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.
> 
> Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies
> 
> How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies
> 
> "Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "
> 
> Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.
> 
> Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy
> 
> 
> This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
> "I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
> found it to be subatantial"
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf
> 
> "In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."
> 
> But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.
> 
> Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".
> 
> Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.
> 
> General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.
> 
> Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.
Click to expand...

Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda. 

Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.


----------



## P@triot

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And I _hope_ one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.
> 
> Defense contractors are *not* subsidized nor have they _ever_ been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.
> 
> No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.
> 
> Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies
> 
> How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies
> 
> "Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "
> 
> Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.
> 
> Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy
> 
> 
> This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
> "I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
> found it to be subatantial"
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf
> 
> "In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."
> 
> But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.
> 
> Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".
> 
> Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.
> 
> General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.
> 
> Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.
Click to expand...

And they *shouldn't*. So lets stop it together as an electorate. It's funny, we hear liberals wailing all the time about "corporate welfare" and then celebrate hundreds of *billions* of dollars in "corporate welfare" to "green" energy.

Nobody should get money from the government. If they earn it as genuine contractors - fine (and no - there is NO reason a "green" energy company would be a contractor for the federal government since the federal government is not responsible for energy).


----------



## Wyatt earp

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One day green energy might just be more efficient.*
> 
> You know planes? They were rubbish. What could you do with a plane? Not much. What was the point? They were high inefficient. Same with cars, only rich people had cars, why? Because they cost too much to run. But if you could afford it, they were great play things. The roads were rubbish too, you wouldn't drive LA to NY in one of those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. And I _hope_ one day that is true. But the government has no business betting on winning and losers in the private market. They pass legislation with the express purpose of trying to put some industries out of business and then spend hundreds of billions subsidizing other industries that can't survive on their own. It's absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.
> 
> Defense contractors are *not* subsidized nor have they _ever_ been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.
> 
> No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.
> 
> Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies
> 
> How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies
> 
> "Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "
> 
> Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.
> 
> Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy
> 
> 
> This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
> "I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
> found it to be subatantial"
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf
> 
> "In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."
> 
> But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.
> 
> Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.
Click to expand...



You libs never cease to amaze me

Why do you constantly attack business that pay a living wage , union high paying jobs and Unions that contribute to democrats?



.


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then they do. They do it for defense contractors all the time, you know, by declaring war on countries it has no reason to declare war on, by making enemies so that the country requires more defense spending etc etc. And the right don't have a problem with that one most of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.
> 
> Defense contractors are *not* subsidized nor have they _ever_ been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.
> 
> No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.
> 
> Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies
> 
> How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies
> 
> "Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "
> 
> Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.
> 
> Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy
> 
> 
> This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
> "I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
> found it to be subatantial"
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf
> 
> "In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."
> 
> But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.
> 
> Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".
> 
> Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.
> 
> General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.
> 
> Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.
> 
> Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.
Click to expand...


And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on....if we're going to discuss this, you have to be a grown up and act like one. Nobody is "declaring war" on countries for "no reason" simply to subsidize anything. You're being completely and totally disingenuous and you know it. Be a big boy and have an adult conversation. Don't resort to mamooth immaturity.
> 
> Defense contractors are *not* subsidized nor have they _ever_ been. They are contracted with because defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the United States and the single most important function of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.
> 
> No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.
> 
> Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies
> 
> How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies
> 
> "Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "
> 
> Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.
> 
> Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy
> 
> 
> This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
> "I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
> found it to be subatantial"
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf
> 
> "In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."
> 
> But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.
> 
> Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".
> 
> Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.
> 
> General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.
> 
> Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.
> 
> Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.
Click to expand...

I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever. 

Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns. 

On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.

I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, they're not declaring war for no reason. They're declaring war for unethical reasons, and in order to reduce oil prices in order to make the economy go better and their friends get richer.
> 
> No, defense contractors are not subsidized. I lied, I made it all up, I'm a fucking idiot.
> 
> Oh, except for companies like Boeing and Lockheed. They get subsidies
> 
> How Big Contractors Mooch on Federal Subsidies
> 
> "Some of the government’s largest contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which rake in billions of federal dollars each year, are also receiving tax credits, bailouts and federal grants—all at the taxpayers’ expense. "
> 
> Boeing got $457 million, Lockheed $331 million.
> 
> Boeing also has $64 billion (yes, billion) in either Federal loans, Federal loan guarantees, or bail out assistance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government Subsidies to Private Military R&D Investment: DOD's IR&D Policy
> 
> 
> This is from a while back, seems nothing has changed.
> "I estimated the amount of private R&D investment devoted to winning the "prizes" offered by the Pentagon, and
> found it to be subatantial"
> 
> http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa350.pdf
> 
> "In fact, during FY96, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in new international arms sales agreements."
> 
> But then I wasn't even talking about this "corporate welfare", I was merely talking about defense spending. If the US needs more weapons because the threat is larger, then companies like Boeing and Lockheed will stand to gain a lot of money. Companies like Halliburton (you know, the one the VP didn't have shares in, but DID have a deal to buy back his shares at the same price when he left office?) almost make a ton of money.
> 
> Because you see, when defense spending goes UP, defense contractors make more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cold war ended, and the US spends more than ever. Bush pushed defense spending really high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halliburton's shares from 2002 to 2005. Wow, who'd have expected their share price to rise so high when there's war on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing's share prices. At a low in 2003, rose massively until 2008. Who'd have thunked it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed were also doing well at this time. What a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".
> 
> Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.
> 
> General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.
> 
> Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.
> 
> Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.
> 
> Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.
> 
> On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.
> 
> I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.
Click to expand...



My propaganda hey? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this.

I understand that resources are used to make renewable energy, did I say any different? No I did not. 
You're just putting me into the basket and saying that everyone in the basket has the same thoughts.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except Boeing pays taxes and is not selling "tax credits".
> 
> Green Energy receives a tax credit they can sell for millions in profits. Boeing does not receive that kind of direct subsidy, Very very different things.
> 
> General Electric, yep, we pointed out that under the Obama administration GE was paying zero in tax, while benefiting from making components for Green Energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.
> 
> Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.
> 
> Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.
> 
> Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.
> 
> On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.
> 
> I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My propaganda hey? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this.
> 
> I understand that resources are used to make renewable energy, did I say any different? No I did not.
> You're just putting me into the basket and saying that everyone in the basket has the same thoughts.
Click to expand...

Sure, I did that, you are in a thread about the unsustainablity of green energy, and you seem to be arguing what?


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Boeing still get a lot of money from the US govt.
> 
> Yes, other companies are like this too. The US is a ridiculous place.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.
> 
> Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.
> 
> Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.
> 
> On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.
> 
> I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My propaganda hey? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this.
> 
> I understand that resources are used to make renewable energy, did I say any different? No I did not.
> You're just putting me into the basket and saying that everyone in the basket has the same thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I did that, you are in a thread about the unsustainablity of green energy, and you seem to be arguing what?
Click to expand...


I seem to be arguing what I argue, and not what you make up that I have argued. That's what.

It's not the first time on this board this has happened, it's not even the 100th time, and it will happen again. Simply because so many partisan people feel comfortable arguing what they know.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet your post, that is a cut/paste is pure propaganda.
> 
> Alternative energy is not sustainable, and is costing us trillions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.
> 
> Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.
> 
> On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.
> 
> I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My propaganda hey? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this.
> 
> I understand that resources are used to make renewable energy, did I say any different? No I did not.
> You're just putting me into the basket and saying that everyone in the basket has the same thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I did that, you are in a thread about the unsustainablity of green energy, and you seem to be arguing what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to be arguing what I argue, and not what you make up that I have argued. That's what.
> 
> It's not the first time on this board this has happened, it's not even the 100th time, and it will happen again. Simply because so many partisan people feel comfortable arguing what they know.
Click to expand...

Your point? I responded to your propaganda about Halliburton and Boeing, I assumed you used that example to justify the Trillions of dollars being and to be spent Renewables. 

Renewables use Oil, they increase the demand for Oil, so now Halliburton profits from Green Energy. 

So what is your point in a thread about the unsustainability of green energy?


----------



## Moonglow

Agit8r said:


> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.


and subsidies, along with tax breaks...


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And can I reply to this post? You've said nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> I said more than your current and paste. The solution you propose will destroy the World, 10's of thousands of square miles of solar panels to cover the earth, which will raise the temperature, mirrors reflecting energy up, creates heat. Miles and miles and miles of Solar Panels takes trillions of tons of natural resources which is processed by Heavy Industry, creating billions of tons of CO2. Wind Turbines, same story, trillions of tons of natural resources processed by Heavy Industry. Increased use of Oil, Hydrocarbons, Coal, to build forever.
> 
> Cost, 1st estimate is $50 Trillion, expect government cost overruns.
> 
> On you tax idiocy, tax deductions on tax forms are much different then the direct and indirect subsidies given to Green Energy. The tax credits Solar and Wind companies get, they sell as a commodity for cash, which pays their bonuses, pays the investors. Boeing does not receive those types of tax credits, it is specific by law to Renewables.
> 
> I addressed your propaganda, 3 times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My propaganda hey? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this.
> 
> I understand that resources are used to make renewable energy, did I say any different? No I did not.
> You're just putting me into the basket and saying that everyone in the basket has the same thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, I did that, you are in a thread about the unsustainablity of green energy, and you seem to be arguing what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seem to be arguing what I argue, and not what you make up that I have argued. That's what.
> 
> It's not the first time on this board this has happened, it's not even the 100th time, and it will happen again. Simply because so many partisan people feel comfortable arguing what they know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point? I responded to your propaganda about Halliburton and Boeing, I assumed you used that example to justify the Trillions of dollars being and to be spent Renewables.
> 
> Renewables use Oil, they increase the demand for Oil, so now Halliburton profits from Green Energy.
> 
> So what is your point in a thread about the unsustainability of green energy?
Click to expand...


My point? If you assume things, you make a fool of yourself.

Propaganda about Boeing and Halliburton? What propaganda? Did I say anything that wasn't true? No I did not. I was asked a question and I replied with the fact and an argument. I know it's shocking, right? Most people on this forum don't bother. And did I expect a sensible reply back? No, did I get one? No.


----------



## Moonglow

bear513 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You stated that you have to spend a million dollars to get the equivalent of an AAA battery.
> 
> Ever heard of portable solar panels?  They sell them in the stores, and here in Amarillo, one of those stores is called Battery Joe's.
> 
> The panels cost about 25 or 30 bucks, will last for several years, and are capable of fully charging a cell phone or tablet in a few hours.
> 
> Some people run their whole house off the grid from solar and wind power, and they usually don't spend more than 10,000 on equipment that they can use for years.
> 
> I don't think your argument holds water.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You live in Amarillo texas? Kind of a cool town.
> 
> 
> I was reading yesterday about 3d printers that reproduce / mining the moon/ making solar panels to put in earths orbit kind of interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Solar Panels Grown On The Moon Could Power The Earth
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The city is so neat they still have street walking hookers....


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> My point? If you assume things, you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> Propaganda about Boeing and Halliburton? What propaganda? Did I say anything that wasn't true? No I did not. I was asked a question and I replied with the fact and an argument. I know it's shocking, right? Most people on this forum don't bother. And did I expect a sensible reply back? No, did I get one? No.


Your post is pure propaganda, first and foremost, you link to an article? Why? Why not link to the study?

Take Boeing, did they receive bailout assistance? A Federal Loan? Or a Loan Guarantee? Technically speaking, no. But if we read the article we will not know that, you must go to the study, which then begins to paint a very different picture. 

If we go to the study, we find that Green Energy is receiving 100's of billions of dollars in subsidies, and grants. 

Much different than a loan guarantee that boeing received. 

I like this which I found through your original post, why do they say it is not easy to separate money received from contracts? Was much of the money Boeing received from contracts? And of course the study is concentrated on Obama spending, so mentioning Bush seems largely propaganda as well. 


> Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point? If you assume things, you make a fool of yourself.
> 
> Propaganda about Boeing and Halliburton? What propaganda? Did I say anything that wasn't true? No I did not. I was asked a question and I replied with the fact and an argument. I know it's shocking, right? Most people on this forum don't bother. And did I expect a sensible reply back? No, did I get one? No.
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is pure propaganda, first and foremost, you link to an article? Why? Why not link to the study?
> 
> Take Boeing, did they receive bailout assistance? A Federal Loan? Or a Loan Guarantee? Technically speaking, no. But if we read the article we will not know that, you must go to the study, which then begins to paint a very different picture.
> 
> If we go to the study, we find that Green Energy is receiving 100's of billions of dollars in subsidies, and grants.
> 
> Much different than a loan guarantee that boeing received.
> 
> I like this which I found through your original post, why do they say it is not easy to separate money received from contracts? Was much of the money Boeing received from contracts? And of course the study is concentrated on Obama spending, so mentioning Bush seems largely propaganda as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Well, if you want to make a case against my case, then fine. 

However all you've done is go "It's propaganda". This happens too much on this board, people with short answers that they use simply to brush away any argument. 

So if you wish to make a counter argument, go ahead. Otherwise, don't bother.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, if you want to make a case against my case, then fine.
> 
> However all you've done is go "It's propaganda". This happens too much on this board, people with short answers that they use simply to brush away any argument.
> 
> So if you wish to make a counter argument, go ahead. Otherwise, don't bother.


You have not made a case, you cut and pasted an article. What is relevant, from your link is they qualify all the pretty pictures with:



> Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.



They literally state, that the money they include in "subsidies", is literally money made from "contracts". 

Like I said, presented as an article and out of context, it is propaganda. I understand how you do not like that, but as you can see from your link, it is true. Pure propaganda.


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to make a case against my case, then fine.
> 
> However all you've done is go "It's propaganda". This happens too much on this board, people with short answers that they use simply to brush away any argument.
> 
> So if you wish to make a counter argument, go ahead. Otherwise, don't bother.
> 
> 
> 
> You have not made a case, you cut and pasted an article. What is relevant, from your link is they qualify all the pretty pictures with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They literally state, that the money they include in "subsidies", is literally money made from "contracts".
> 
> Like I said, presented as an article and out of context, it is propaganda. I understand how you do not like that, but as you can see from your link, it is true. Pure propaganda.
Click to expand...


You know, I can't be bothered with this pretty nonsense.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I can't be bothered with this pretty nonsense.
Click to expand...


You can not be bothered to answer to what is contained in your own link? You simply cherry pick and that is it, even if a quote comes from your link is contrary to your assertion, it is nonsense?


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I can't be bothered with this pretty nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can not be bothered to answer to what is contained in your own link? You simply cherry pick and that is it, even if a quote comes from your link is contrary to your assertion, it is nonsense?
Click to expand...


No, I can't be bothered with your nonsense. Your "You haven't made a case" "Your post is pure propaganda", you always seem to start a post with a slightly veiled attack. I'm not doing it, so either go away, or come back when you're going to act like a decent human being.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> No, I can't be bothered with your nonsense. Your "You haven't made a case" "Your post is pure propaganda", you always seem to start a post with a slightly veiled attack. I'm not doing it, so either go away, or come back when you're going to act like a decent human being.



You can not be bothered? With what is a quote from your link? That states the opposite of what the Cherry Picked, cut/paste, insinuates? 



> Although a large portion is contained in USASpending, it is not easy to separate subsidy information from the other types of grant and loan awards (as well as contracts) contained in that database.



Can I quote a bit more, from the study you have selected? It seems the largest tax credits and grants go to Green Energy companies. And lets not forget, Green Energy companies sell Tax Credits for profit, they are not used to defer taxes, they are sold, for cash.



> Big Recipients: Grants and Allocated Tax Credits
> The company with the largest total, $2.2 billion, is not a household name in the United States. The Spanish electric utility Iberdrola has invested heavily in U.S. power generation facilities, especially renewables. Starting with its 2006 purchase of Scottish Power and its North American subsidiary PPM Energy, Iberdrola has since expanded its wind portfolio to more than 40 projects from Southern California to New England. It now calls itself the second largest wind-energy operator in the United States.16 Many of the wind farms it acquired or built have taken advantage of a provision in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Section 1603) that allows companies to receive cash payments in lieu of tax credits for the installation of renewable energy properties.17 Section 1603 has awarded more than $23 billion to companies with U.S. and foreign parents. NextEra Energy, the parent of Florida Power & Light and number two on the list, got about 90 percent of its grants from Section 1603; number three NRG Energy got about 80 percent



So, according to FRIGIDWEIRDO's link, the biggest recipients of subsidies is Green Energy.


----------



## bripat9643

Agit8r said:


> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.


Oil companies bid on those leases.  They pay the market price, so your whine is not only wrong but idiotic.


----------



## P@triot

Another perfect example of the unsustainability of "green energy". This is wasting all of our money and negatively impacting our defense.

Costly Renewable Energy Regulations Prevent Our Military From Doing Its Job


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rottweiler said:


> Another perfect example of the unsustainability of "green energy". This is wasting all of our money and negatively impacting our defense.
> 
> Costly Renewable Energy Regulations Prevent Our Military From Doing Its Job



Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone

"
*Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone*"

"Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says."

"Last year, wind provided 22% of electricity and all renewable sources together provided 48%, according to the Portuguese renewable energy association."

"In 2015, wind power alone met 42% of electricity demand in Denmark, 20% in Spain, 13% in Germany and 11% in the UK."

Sure, unsustainable....... not.


----------



## P@triot

Moonglow said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> and subsidies, along with tax breaks...
Click to expand...

"Subsidies"?!? Yeah....those all go to the failed "green" energy. What fossil fuels get are devastating regulatory costs aimed at putting them out of business.


----------



## P@triot

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another perfect example of the unsustainability of "green energy". This is wasting all of our money and negatively impacting our defense.
> 
> Costly Renewable Energy Regulations Prevent Our Military From Doing Its Job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone
> 
> "*Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone*"
> 
> "Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says."
> 
> "Last year, wind provided 22% of electricity and all renewable sources together provided 48%, according to the Portuguese renewable energy association."
> 
> "In 2015, wind power alone met 42% of electricity demand in Denmark, 20% in Spain, 13% in Germany and 11% in the UK."
> 
> Sure, unsustainable....... not.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't understand what the word "unsustainable" means? (Hint: notice how there is not one single word about what it cost to build out that infrastructure? Yeah - that's not by accident).


----------



## Moonglow

Rottweiler said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> and subsidies, along with tax breaks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Subsidies"?!? Yeah....those all go to the failed "green" energy. What fossil fuels get are devastating regulatory costs aimed at putting them out of business.
Click to expand...

Why do you hate the GOP energy policy law of 2005?


----------



## P@triot

This is a prime example of why the idiotic "green" pipe dream is unsustainable (for people like Frigidweirdo who just don't understand that this is unsustainable)...

_The Solar Impulse 2 features 17,000 solar cells crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.

By contrast, a Boeing 747-400 running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all._

In short - liberals want to _force_ us into an energy source that flies only 2 people at a time (and at least one of them must be a pilot) at a "whopping" 43 miles per hour. That is a very special kind of stupid that could only come from the left. I can drive 50% faster with my entire family on fossil fuels and about a millionth of the cost.

Why the Left Is Wrong to Demonize Affordable Energy


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rottweiler said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another perfect example of the unsustainability of "green energy". This is wasting all of our money and negatively impacting our defense.
> 
> Costly Renewable Energy Regulations Prevent Our Military From Doing Its Job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone
> 
> "*Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone*"
> 
> "Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says."
> 
> "Last year, wind provided 22% of electricity and all renewable sources together provided 48%, according to the Portuguese renewable energy association."
> 
> "In 2015, wind power alone met 42% of electricity demand in Denmark, 20% in Spain, 13% in Germany and 11% in the UK."
> 
> Sure, unsustainable....... not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand what the word "unsustainable" means? (Hint: notice how there is not one single word about what it cost to build out that infrastructure? Yeah - that's not by accident).
Click to expand...


I understand what sustainable means. I know it's also not just a simple case of things appearing. Time will tell whether this is really viable, but it depends on whether people put their pockets first and demand everything be slave labor cheap, or whether they value the air they breathe.


----------



## P@triot

Moonglow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> and subsidies, along with tax breaks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Subsidies"?!? Yeah....those all go to the failed "green" energy. What fossil fuels get are devastating regulatory costs aimed at putting them out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the GOP energy policy law of 2005?
Click to expand...

Why do you have to reference something so old, my children weren't even born yet? That was more than a decade ago - when we didn't have a failed marxist sitting in the Oval Office. How about you join us in the laws and regulations of the current decade/administration?

Incidentally - I hate most things the Republican Party does.


----------



## Moonglow

Rottweiler said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> and subsidies, along with tax breaks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Subsidies"?!? Yeah....those all go to the failed "green" energy. What fossil fuels get are devastating regulatory costs aimed at putting them out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the GOP energy policy law of 2005?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you have to reference something so old, my children weren't even born yet? That was more than a decade ago - when we didn't have a failed marxist sitting in the Oval Office. How about you join us in the laws and regulations of the current decade/administration?
> 
> Incidentally - I hate most things the Republican Party does.
Click to expand...

Oblama is following the Energy Policy Act of 2005...


----------



## P@triot

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another perfect example of the unsustainability of "green energy". This is wasting all of our money and negatively impacting our defense.
> 
> Costly Renewable Energy Regulations Prevent Our Military From Doing Its Job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone
> 
> "*Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone*"
> 
> "Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says."
> 
> "Last year, wind provided 22% of electricity and all renewable sources together provided 48%, according to the Portuguese renewable energy association."
> 
> "In 2015, wind power alone met 42% of electricity demand in Denmark, 20% in Spain, 13% in Germany and 11% in the UK."
> 
> Sure, unsustainable....... not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand what the word "unsustainable" means? (Hint: notice how there is not one single word about what it cost to build out that infrastructure? Yeah - that's not by accident).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what sustainable means. I know it's also not just a simple case of things appearing. Time will tell whether this is really viable, but it depends on whether people put their pockets first and demand everything be slave labor cheap, or whether they value the air they breathe.
Click to expand...

In time it _will_ be viable. But we're a loooong way away and forcing this nonsense through government coercion called "regulations" along with illegal subsidies is suicide. It's killing us (as liberal policy always does). Very wealthy, influential people like Bill Gates are obsessed with "green" energy. Let them handle this and get the government out of it. What they are doing is _illegal_.


----------



## P@triot

Moonglow said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.
> 
> 
> 
> and subsidies, along with tax breaks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Subsidies"?!? Yeah....those all go to the failed "green" energy. What fossil fuels get are devastating regulatory costs aimed at putting them out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you hate the GOP energy policy law of 2005?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you have to reference something so old, my children weren't even born yet? That was more than a decade ago - when we didn't have a failed marxist sitting in the Oval Office. How about you join us in the laws and regulations of the current decade/administration?
> 
> Incidentally - I hate most things the Republican Party does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oblama is following the Energy Policy Act of 2005...
Click to expand...

No. He's not. At all. Really.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Rottweiler said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another perfect example of the unsustainability of "green energy". This is wasting all of our money and negatively impacting our defense.
> 
> Costly Renewable Energy Regulations Prevent Our Military From Doing Its Job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone
> 
> "*Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone*"
> 
> "Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says."
> 
> "Last year, wind provided 22% of electricity and all renewable sources together provided 48%, according to the Portuguese renewable energy association."
> 
> "In 2015, wind power alone met 42% of electricity demand in Denmark, 20% in Spain, 13% in Germany and 11% in the UK."
> 
> Sure, unsustainable....... not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you don't understand what the word "unsustainable" means? (Hint: notice how there is not one single word about what it cost to build out that infrastructure? Yeah - that's not by accident).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what sustainable means. I know it's also not just a simple case of things appearing. Time will tell whether this is really viable, but it depends on whether people put their pockets first and demand everything be slave labor cheap, or whether they value the air they breathe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In time it _will_ be viable. But we're a loooong way away and forcing this nonsense through government coercion called "regulations" along with illegal subsidies is suicide. It's killing us (as liberal policy always does). Very wealthy, influential people like Bill Gates are obsessed with "green" energy. Let them handle this and get the government out of it. What they are doing is _illegal_.
Click to expand...


The Space Era was forced through, didn't have a problem with that one, hey? 

How about all the Wars? Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq 2, Somalia, all the stuff in Latin America and the rest? 

You don't like something, you say it'll never be sustainable, in order to make the govt take money away so it never actually becomes sustainable. Self fulfilling prophecy. You're like my boss. But we won't go there.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another perfect example of the unsustainability of "green energy". This is wasting all of our money and negatively impacting our defense.
> 
> Costly Renewable Energy Regulations Prevent Our Military From Doing Its Job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone
> 
> "
> *Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone*"
> 
> "Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says."
> 
> "Last year, wind provided 22% of electricity and all renewable sources together provided 48%, according to the Portuguese renewable energy association."
> 
> "In 2015, wind power alone met 42% of electricity demand in Denmark, 20% in Spain, 13% in Germany and 11% in the UK."
> 
> Sure, unsustainable....... not.
Click to expand...

As reported by the Solar and Wind industry! Lets not forget that Portugal imports more than half its power. 

That said, Hydroelectric power is not renewable. Venezuela and Brazil can attest to that fact. 

Hydroelectric power is not sustainable, you can not dam the rivers and kill all the fish, there is a limit to the amount of damage you can do to the environment. 

But what the hell, Solar and Wind are so weak, you must include Hydroelectric to try and sell them to the public.


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another perfect example of the unsustainability of "green energy". This is wasting all of our money and negatively impacting our defense.
> 
> Costly Renewable Energy Regulations Prevent Our Military From Doing Its Job
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone
> 
> "
> *Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone*"
> 
> "Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says."
> 
> "Last year, wind provided 22% of electricity and all renewable sources together provided 48%, according to the Portuguese renewable energy association."
> 
> "In 2015, wind power alone met 42% of electricity demand in Denmark, 20% in Spain, 13% in Germany and 11% in the UK."
> 
> Sure, unsustainable....... not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As reported by the Solar and Wind industry! Lets not forget that Portugal imports more than half its power.
> 
> That said, Hydroelectric power is not renewable. Venezuela and Brazil can attest to that fact.
> 
> Hydroelectric power is not sustainable, you can not dam the rivers and kill all the fish, there is a limit to the amount of damage you can do to the environment.
> 
> But what the hell, Solar and Wind are so weak, you must include Hydroelectric to try and sell them to the public.
Click to expand...


Again, you've said something like "Venezuela and Brazil can attest to that fact", fact? I don't see a fact there. I see you saying it's a fact, but no fact.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> Again, you've said something like "Venezuela and Brazil can attest to that fact", fact? I don't see a fact there. I see you saying it's a fact, but no fact.


So you are saying you have no idea what is going on in the World, figures.


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you've said something like "Venezuela and Brazil can attest to that fact", fact? I don't see a fact there. I see you saying it's a fact, but no fact.
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying you have no idea what is going on in the World, figures.
Click to expand...


No. I'm saying you're attempting to make an argument and doing a very bad job of it.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> No. I'm saying you're attempting to make an argument and doing a very bad job of it.


Then tell us what happened in Brazil and Venezuela, regarding hydroelectric power.


----------



## elektra

Electricity dependent on rain is not sustainable, to depend on the rain for 80% of a societies electricity is criminal.

Brazil Power Supply Cut as Demand Peaks; Stocks Plunge

At least nine Brazilian states suffered blackouts after the country’s power grid operator restricted electricity distribution during hours of peak use.

Units at 11 power plants that account for 2,200 megawatts, or about 5 percent of the integrated distribution system, were automatically cut Monday, according to grid operator ONS.

The supply interruptions stoked concern that the country is facing energy rationing as dry weather depletes hydroelectric dams. Shares of CPFL Energia SA, which generates and distributes energy in three of the states affected by the outage, tumbled 7.3 percent as the MSCI Brazil Utilities Index lost 5.7 percent, the most among 10 industry groups.


----------



## elektra

Venezuela, is in worst shape then Brazil. Amazingly, people who make claims about how great Sustainable Renewable Green Clean energy is, they have zero knowledge of if they work and they are completely ignorant of the numerous failures.


Venezuela sends country on forced vacation after hydroelectric power dries up
*Venezuela sends country on forced vacation after hydroelectric power dries up*


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm saying you're attempting to make an argument and doing a very bad job of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell us what happened in Brazil and Venezuela, regarding hydroelectric power.
Click to expand...


Fucking hell dude, you've really got some problems don't you? 

You want to make an argument, you either make it, or you don't. Don't come here trying to play some silly teenager type quiz. 

Look, my dad's car is bigger than your dad's car. My dad's cock is bigger than your dad's cock. And.....

Oh, forget it, go away and come back when you've grown up.


----------



## elektra

frigidweirdo said:


> Fucking hell dude, you've really got some problems don't you?
> 
> You want to make an argument, you either make it, or you don't. Don't come here trying to play some silly teenager type quiz.
> 
> Look, my dad's car is bigger than your dad's car. My dad's cock is bigger than your dad's cock. And.....
> 
> Oh, forget it, go away and come back when you've grown up.


Sorry I challenged you to support your opinion. In the future I will simply let you dictate what is suppose to be fact. But, you certainly did throw a nice cry baby tantrum when I played your own game.

You are pathetic. Your retort was hardly, grown up.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy


Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
Click to expand...

Renewables have failed the last 40 years, we have funded the research, the price of which we are not told. Hundreds of billions? But the fact is, there will not be a technological breakthrough with Windmills, there is only so much you can do with propellers. Solar, it is so weak now that even if it was improved, it would still be weak.

Wind and solar are simply weak sources for power.


----------



## P@triot

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Renewables have failed the last 40 years, we have funded the research, the price of which we are not told. Hundreds of billions? But the fact is, there will not be a technological breakthrough with Windmills, there is only so much you can do with propellers. Solar, it is so weak now that even if it was improved, it would still be weak.
> 
> Wind and solar are simply weak sources for power.
Click to expand...

And expensive. You forgot _outrageously_ expensive. I can drop $30,000 for the energy equivalent of a AAA battery or I can spend $0.30 to run my entire home for a day. Only a idiot would struggle with this one....


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
Click to expand...

Dude....I don't disagree with that at all. So you know what the Wright brothers and other people did? They continued to develop the airplane *without* government funding. Do the same thing with "green" technology and I will be behind you 100%. Keep spending my tax dollars illegally on that shit, and I'll do everything in my power to sabotage those efforts. I'll vote for anyone who promises to defund it. I'll support anything fossil fuels.

I love the concept of renewable energy. I really do. But this government subsidized stuff is pure, unadulterated bullshit. It's costing us hundreds of billions in tax dollars and at the same time it's causing all of our energy prices to skyrocket. Completely unacceptable - especially considering it is unconstitutional.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Renewables have failed the last 40 years, we have funded the research, the price of which we are not told. Hundreds of billions? But the fact is, there will not be a technological breakthrough with Windmills, there is only so much you can do with propellers. Solar, it is so weak now that even if it was improved, it would still be weak.
> 
> Wind and solar are simply weak sources for power.
Click to expand...

Like I said, all the renewables need more development. But they work, and will work even better if they keep working on it. As for government help, well, if we take the airplane again as an example, governments on both sides in WWI and WWII pumped tons of money into developing airplanes, like the jet, which was developed by the Nazis near the end of the war...
And some companies have been experimenting with solar shingles for your house, which is a very good idea, free power! What's not to like?


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude....I don't disagree with that at all. So you know what the Wright brothers and other people did? They continued to develop the airplane *without* government funding. Do the same thing with "green" technology and I will be behind you 100%. Keep spending my tax dollars illegally on that shit, and I'll do everything in my power to sabotage those efforts. I'll vote for anyone who promises to defund it. I'll support anything fossil fuels.
> 
> I love the concept of renewable energy. I really do. But this government subsidized stuff is pure, unadulterated bullshit. It's costing us hundreds of billions in tax dollars and at the same time it's causing all of our energy prices to skyrocket. Completely unacceptable - especially considering it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

"They continued to develop the airplane *without* government funding."
If we take the airplane as an example, governments on both sides in WWI and WWII pumped tons of money into developing airplanes, like the jet, which was developed by the Nazis near the end of the war... 
And government subsidies in the aerospace business are still plentiful today.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Renewables have failed the last 40 years, we have funded the research, the price of which we are not told. Hundreds of billions? But the fact is, there will not be a technological breakthrough with Windmills, there is only so much you can do with propellers. Solar, it is so weak now that even if it was improved, it would still be weak.
> 
> Wind and solar are simply weak sources for power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And expensive. You forgot _outrageously_ expensive. I can drop $30,000 for the energy equivalent of a AAA battery or I can spend $0.30 to run my entire home for a day. Only a idiot would struggle with this one....
Click to expand...

The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude....I don't disagree with that at all. So you know what the Wright brothers and other people did? They continued to develop the airplane *without* government funding. Do the same thing with "green" technology and I will be behind you 100%. Keep spending my tax dollars illegally on that shit, and I'll do everything in my power to sabotage those efforts. I'll vote for anyone who promises to defund it. I'll support anything fossil fuels.
> 
> I love the concept of renewable energy. I really do. But this government subsidized stuff is pure, unadulterated bullshit. It's costing us hundreds of billions in tax dollars and at the same time it's causing all of our energy prices to skyrocket. Completely unacceptable - especially considering it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "They continued to develop the airplane *without* government funding."
> If we take the airplane as an example, governments on both sides in WWI and WWII pumped tons of money into developing airplanes, like the jet, which was developed by the Nazis near the end of the war...
> And government subsidies in the aerospace business are still plentiful today.
Click to expand...


Nice try...but that's completely false and you know it. The U.S. government did *not* invest in "airplanes". They did develop fighter jets for military applications. Guess what - the people do not travel from California to Florida in fighter jets.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.



Want to talk about "head in the sand"? You're so unaware of the facts and history of it that you don't even realize that Jimmy Carter had "solar panels" paced on the White House during his administration. Ronald Reagan had them removed because they cost way more than they produced. Solar panels have been around for over 40 years with nearly zero advancements. More than 40 years after the Wright brothers first flight, planes had _dramatically_ improved.

Ok...you can place your head back in the liberal sand now junior.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to talk about "head in the sand"? You're so unaware of the facts and history of it that you don't even realize that Jimmy Carter had "solar panels" paced on the White House during his administration. Ronald Reagan had them removed because they cost way more than they produced. Solar panels have been around for over 40 years with nearly zero advancements. More than 40 years after the Wright brothers first flight, planes had _dramatically_ improved.
> 
> Ok...you can place your head back in the liberal sand now junior.
Click to expand...

Brah, stop living in the past, without new innovations for power, the lights will eventually go off. Maybe not in your lifetime, but the fossil fuels can't last forever. Government money helps accelerate those new products, just like with the airplane. And anyways, the oil and gas business gets government subsidies as well, so wtf are you talking about anyways?


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?



Oh goody. Fro $35,000 for the energy equivalent of a AAA battery to $30,000. What a reason to get giddy. And your "pollution" claim is comical. Does real pollution bother me? Sure. Which is why I genuinely love the _idea_ of clean, renewable energy. But this is where the idiocy of the liberal ideology gets _really_ comical. Most of the "pollution" that you people cry about is CO2. Well...CO2 is what plants live off of (like we live off of oxygen). The moment you rid the world of CO2, all plants will immediately die (and plants give off the oxygen we need). There is nothing better for the plants you tree-huggers literally shed tears over than CO2.

The problem with the libtard ideology is that it assumes everything occurs in a vacuum. There is no cause and effect. There is simple action A with no results from that. A great example is the wind turbines. Liberals are all frothy over how wonderful they are for the environment. You know what they are doing for the environment? Killing birds at an alarming rate. I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?

US windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought

Same thing with solar panels. You know what solar farms are doing? Killing all plant life beneath them since everything below the sea of panels sits in shade all day. Plants need sun for photosynthesis. So again - I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?

Somewhere out there is the answer to all of our problems (I recently saw "Kinetic Wave Power" here which looks like an awesome solution) but unless one of those problems is one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government, the solutions damn well better come from the private sector. Period. It's the law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to talk about "head in the sand"? You're so unaware of the facts and history of it that you don't even realize that Jimmy Carter had "solar panels" paced on the White House during his administration. Ronald Reagan had them removed because they cost way more than they produced. Solar panels have been around for over 40 years with nearly zero advancements. More than 40 years after the Wright brothers first flight, planes had _dramatically_ improved.
> 
> Ok...you can place your head back in the liberal sand now junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brah, stop living in the past, without new innovations for power, the lights will eventually go off. Maybe not in your lifetime, but the fossil fuels can't last forever. Government money helps accelerate those new products, just like with the airplane. And anyways, the oil and gas business gets government subsidies as well, so wtf are you talking about anyways?
Click to expand...



*And anyways, the oil and gas business gets government subsidies as well*

Any details on this claim?


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude....I don't disagree with that at all. So you know what the Wright brothers and other people did? They continued to develop the airplane *without* government funding. Do the same thing with "green" technology and I will be behind you 100%. Keep spending my tax dollars illegally on that shit, and I'll do everything in my power to sabotage those efforts. I'll vote for anyone who promises to defund it. I'll support anything fossil fuels.
> 
> I love the concept of renewable energy. I really do. But this government subsidized stuff is pure, unadulterated bullshit. It's costing us hundreds of billions in tax dollars and at the same time it's causing all of our energy prices to skyrocket. Completely unacceptable - especially considering it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "They continued to develop the airplane *without* government funding."
> If we take the airplane as an example, governments on both sides in WWI and WWII pumped tons of money into developing airplanes, like the jet, which was developed by the Nazis near the end of the war...
> And government subsidies in the aerospace business are still plentiful today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try...but that's completely false and you know it. The U.S. government did *not* invest in "airplanes". They did develop fighter jets for military applications. Guess what - the people do not travel from California to Florida in fighter jets.
Click to expand...

The jet airplane was invented by the Nazis towards the end of WWII. Commercial jet airliners come from that.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody. Fro $35,000 for the energy equivalent of a AAA battery to $30,000. What a reason to get giddy. And your "pollution" claim is comical. Does real pollution bother me? Sure. Which is why I genuinely love the _idea_ of clean, renewable energy. But this is where the idiocy of the liberal ideology gets _really_ comical. Most of the "pollution" that you people cry about is CO2. Well...CO2 is what plants live off of (like we live off of oxygen). The moment you rid the world of CO2, all plants will immediately die (and plants give off the oxygen we need). There is nothing better for the plants you tree-huggers literally shed tears over than CO2.
> 
> The problem with the libtard ideology is that it assumes everything occurs in a vacuum. There is no cause and effect. There is simple action A with no results from that. A great example is the wind turbines. Liberals are all frothy over how wonderful they are for the environment. You know what they are doing for the environment? Killing birds at an alarming rate. I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> US windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought
> 
> Same thing with solar panels. You know what solar farms are doing? Killing all plant life beneath them since everything below the sea of panels sits in shade all day. Plants need sun for photosynthesis. So again - I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> Somewhere out there is the answer to all of our problems (I recently saw "Kinetic Wave Power" here which looks like an awesome solution) but unless one of those problems is one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government, the solutions damn well better come from the private sector. Period. It's the law.
Click to expand...

Like I said, a company is working on solar shingles for your house, which will be awesome. You can keep paying the electric company if you want, I'm sure they'll still take your money. 
"Killing all plant life beneath them", that's pretty funny, so I guess extracting all the coal and the land that the generating plant sit on down take up any land that your plants could grow on. Man, that's really dumb, even for you.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please get your head out of the sand for a minute so that I can explain it to you: Renewable energies, just like fusion, need to be developed more, because that's the future. You're like the guy who was at Kitty Hawk, and when the Wright brothers only flew a short distance, you said "that sucked, what a waste of time!". Ok, now you can stick your head back in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to talk about "head in the sand"? You're so unaware of the facts and history of it that you don't even realize that Jimmy Carter had "solar panels" paced on the White House during his administration. Ronald Reagan had them removed because they cost way more than they produced. Solar panels have been around for over 40 years with nearly zero advancements. More than 40 years after the Wright brothers first flight, planes had _dramatically_ improved.
> 
> Ok...you can place your head back in the liberal sand now junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brah, stop living in the past, without new innovations for power, the lights will eventually go off. Maybe not in your lifetime, but the fossil fuels can't last forever. Government money helps accelerate those new products, just like with the airplane. And anyways, the oil and gas business gets government subsidies as well, so wtf are you talking about anyways?
Click to expand...

First of all - I _vehemently_ oppose subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (I'm not a liberal, thus I'm not a hypocrite - I apply my views consistently). Second, the fossil fuel industry has been viciously attacked with "regulations" by the Obama Administration with the express purpose of putting them out of business (to _force_ people into green energy solutions since the technology sucks so bad nobody will adopt it of their own free will). Third, our current fossil fuels energy will never run out. Nuclear energy is the cheapest yet most powerful energy source in the world and it's not even a "fossil" fuel harvested from the Earth. It is man made through a scientific process. And the Earth is _forever_ making natural gas, coal, and oil. Of the three of those, the only one that has even the slightest remote chance of running out is oil only because we are using it as such a drastic rate.

If we're going to discuss this, the discussion has to be rooted in reality. I have no interest in science fiction.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody. Fro $35,000 for the energy equivalent of a AAA battery to $30,000. What a reason to get giddy. And your "pollution" claim is comical. Does real pollution bother me? Sure. Which is why I genuinely love the _idea_ of clean, renewable energy. But this is where the idiocy of the liberal ideology gets _really_ comical. Most of the "pollution" that you people cry about is CO2. Well...CO2 is what plants live off of (like we live off of oxygen). The moment you rid the world of CO2, all plants will immediately die (and plants give off the oxygen we need). There is nothing better for the plants you tree-huggers literally shed tears over than CO2.
> 
> The problem with the libtard ideology is that it assumes everything occurs in a vacuum. There is no cause and effect. There is simple action A with no results from that. A great example is the wind turbines. Liberals are all frothy over how wonderful they are for the environment. You know what they are doing for the environment? Killing birds at an alarming rate. I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> US windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought
> 
> Same thing with solar panels. You know what solar farms are doing? Killing all plant life beneath them since everything below the sea of panels sits in shade all day. Plants need sun for photosynthesis. So again - I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> Somewhere out there is the answer to all of our problems (I recently saw "Kinetic Wave Power" here which looks like an awesome solution) but unless one of those problems is one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government, the solutions damn well better come from the private sector. Period. It's the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, a company is working on solar shingles for your house, which will be awesome. You can keep paying the electric company if you want, I'm sure they'll still take your money.
> "Killing all plant life beneath them", that's pretty funny, so I guess extracting all the coal and the land that the generating plant sit on down take up any land that your plants could grow on. Man, that's really dumb, even for you.
Click to expand...

And how the frick does mining coal kill plants?!? You do realize that coal is in mines and underground (where there are no plants).


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Like I said, a company is working on solar shingles for your house, which will be awesome. You can keep paying the electric company if you want, I'm sure they'll still take your money.



Great. And when they develop that to the point where I can run my home without dropping tens of thousands of dollars and without the government funding them, then I'm _all_ in. Until that time, this is just another immature libtard fantasy. You're all a bunch of immature idealists - not willing to accept reality or work within the law.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody. Fro $35,000 for the energy equivalent of a AAA battery to $30,000. What a reason to get giddy. And your "pollution" claim is comical. Does real pollution bother me? Sure. Which is why I genuinely love the _idea_ of clean, renewable energy. But this is where the idiocy of the liberal ideology gets _really_ comical. Most of the "pollution" that you people cry about is CO2. Well...CO2 is what plants live off of (like we live off of oxygen). The moment you rid the world of CO2, all plants will immediately die (and plants give off the oxygen we need). There is nothing better for the plants you tree-huggers literally shed tears over than CO2.
> 
> The problem with the libtard ideology is that it assumes everything occurs in a vacuum. There is no cause and effect. There is simple action A with no results from that. A great example is the wind turbines. Liberals are all frothy over how wonderful they are for the environment. You know what they are doing for the environment? Killing birds at an alarming rate. I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> US windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought
> 
> Same thing with solar panels. You know what solar farms are doing? Killing all plant life beneath them since everything below the sea of panels sits in shade all day. Plants need sun for photosynthesis. So again - I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> Somewhere out there is the answer to all of our problems (I recently saw "Kinetic Wave Power" here which looks like an awesome solution) but unless one of those problems is one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government, the solutions damn well better come from the private sector. Period. It's the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, a company is working on solar shingles for your house, which will be awesome. You can keep paying the electric company if you want, I'm sure they'll still take your money.
> "Killing all plant life beneath them", that's pretty funny, so I guess extracting all the coal and the land that the generating plant sit on down take up any land that your plants could grow on. Man, that's really dumb, even for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how the frick does mining coal kill plants?!? You do realize that coal is in mines and underground (where there are no plants).
Click to expand...

A lot of coal mining these days is open pit mining, anyways even underground, the coal plant's footprint killed a hell of a lot of plant life. Much bigger than a solar farm, that's for sure. Then throw in the generating plant? It's no contest, you lose.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, a company is working on solar shingles for your house, which will be awesome. You can keep paying the electric company if you want, I'm sure they'll still take your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. And when they develop that to the point where I can run my home without dropping tens of thousands of dollars and without the government funding them, then I'm _all_ in. Until that time, this is just another immature libtard fantasy. You're all a bunch of immature idealists - not willing to accept reality or work within the law.
Click to expand...

No, when solar shingles will be developed, you can't have any. Or are you a hypocrite who is against it until he's for it?


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, a company is working on solar shingles for your house, which will be awesome. You can keep paying the electric company if you want, I'm sure they'll still take your money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. And when they develop that to the point where I can run my home without dropping tens of thousands of dollars and without the government funding them, then I'm _all_ in. Until that time, this is just another immature libtard fantasy. You're all a bunch of immature idealists - not willing to accept reality or work within the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, when solar shingles will be developed, you can't have any. Or are you a hypocrite who is against it until he's for it?
Click to expand...

No...I've been very consistent junior. When it's properly developed in the private sector to the point it's a viable option, I'm all in. See, that's how the free market works. I wouldn't expect a fascist idealist to understand though.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody. Fro $35,000 for the energy equivalent of a AAA battery to $30,000. What a reason to get giddy. And your "pollution" claim is comical. Does real pollution bother me? Sure. Which is why I genuinely love the _idea_ of clean, renewable energy. But this is where the idiocy of the liberal ideology gets _really_ comical. Most of the "pollution" that you people cry about is CO2. Well...CO2 is what plants live off of (like we live off of oxygen). The moment you rid the world of CO2, all plants will immediately die (and plants give off the oxygen we need). There is nothing better for the plants you tree-huggers literally shed tears over than CO2.
> 
> The problem with the libtard ideology is that it assumes everything occurs in a vacuum. There is no cause and effect. There is simple action A with no results from that. A great example is the wind turbines. Liberals are all frothy over how wonderful they are for the environment. You know what they are doing for the environment? Killing birds at an alarming rate. I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> US windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought
> 
> Same thing with solar panels. You know what solar farms are doing? Killing all plant life beneath them since everything below the sea of panels sits in shade all day. Plants need sun for photosynthesis. So again - I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> Somewhere out there is the answer to all of our problems (I recently saw "Kinetic Wave Power" here which looks like an awesome solution) but unless one of those problems is one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government, the solutions damn well better come from the private sector. Period. It's the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, a company is working on solar shingles for your house, which will be awesome. You can keep paying the electric company if you want, I'm sure they'll still take your money.
> "Killing all plant life beneath them", that's pretty funny, so I guess extracting all the coal and the land that the generating plant sit on down take up any land that your plants could grow on. Man, that's really dumb, even for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how the frick does mining coal kill plants?!? You do realize that coal is in mines and underground (where there are no plants).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of coal mining these days is open pit mining, anyways even underground, the coal plant's footprint killed a hell of a lot of plant life. Much bigger than a solar farm, that's for sure. Then throw in the generating plant? It's no contest, you lose.
Click to expand...

You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lose.


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?


That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture. 

Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.

Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.


----------



## P@triot

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, it is simply not a viable solution at this point. In 2085, it will probably be some pretty good stuff. But right now, it's _killing_ America. It's costing us a fortune in illegal/unconstitutional tax dollars and it's causing energy prices to skyrocket.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody. Fro $35,000 for the energy equivalent of a AAA battery to $30,000. What a reason to get giddy. And your "pollution" claim is comical. Does real pollution bother me? Sure. Which is why I genuinely love the _idea_ of clean, renewable energy. But this is where the idiocy of the liberal ideology gets _really_ comical. Most of the "pollution" that you people cry about is CO2. Well...CO2 is what plants live off of (like we live off of oxygen). The moment you rid the world of CO2, all plants will immediately die (and plants give off the oxygen we need). There is nothing better for the plants you tree-huggers literally shed tears over than CO2.
> 
> The problem with the libtard ideology is that it assumes everything occurs in a vacuum. There is no cause and effect. There is simple action A with no results from that. A great example is the wind turbines. Liberals are all frothy over how wonderful they are for the environment. You know what they are doing for the environment? Killing birds at an alarming rate. I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> US windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought
> 
> Same thing with solar panels. You know what solar farms are doing? Killing all plant life beneath them since everything below the sea of panels sits in shade all day. Plants need sun for photosynthesis. So again - I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> Somewhere out there is the answer to all of our problems (I recently saw "Kinetic Wave Power" here which looks like an awesome solution) but unless one of those problems is one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government, the solutions damn well better come from the private sector. Period. It's the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, a company is working on solar shingles for your house, which will be awesome. You can keep paying the electric company if you want, I'm sure they'll still take your money.
> "Killing all plant life beneath them", that's pretty funny, so I guess extracting all the coal and the land that the generating plant sit on down take up any land that your plants could grow on. Man, that's really dumb, even for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how the frick does mining coal kill plants?!? You do realize that coal is in mines and underground (where there are no plants).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of coal mining these days is open pit mining, anyways even underground, the coal plant's footprint killed a hell of a lot of plant life. Much bigger than a solar farm, that's for sure. Then throw in the generating plant? It's no contest, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lose.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you had already lost. Please try again.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
Click to expand...

I own 60 acres of forested land around my house that pulls out way more pollution out of the air than I can ever hope to create.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mudda said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I own 60 acres of forested land around my house that pulls out way more pollution out of the air than I can ever hope to create.
Click to expand...


What kinds of pollution are your trees pulling out of the air?


----------



## elektra

Rottweiler said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the end of the day, it is simply not a viable solution at this point. In 2085, it will probably be some pretty good stuff. But right now, it's _killing_ America. It's costing us a fortune in illegal/unconstitutional tax dollars and it's causing energy prices to skyrocket.
Click to expand...

In 2085 Solar and Wind will still need Oil to be built, in 2085 everything else will probably be some pretty good stuff, hence you will never need Solar and Wind power. The gap in performance will never close.


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I own 60 acres of forested land around my house that pulls out way more pollution out of the air than I can ever hope to create.
Click to expand...

Unless you buy Solar Panels, then the damage is done, then you burnt Coal and used Oil that never would of been used.


----------



## frigidweirdo

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking hell dude, you've really got some problems don't you?
> 
> You want to make an argument, you either make it, or you don't. Don't come here trying to play some silly teenager type quiz.
> 
> Look, my dad's car is bigger than your dad's car. My dad's cock is bigger than your dad's cock. And.....
> 
> Oh, forget it, go away and come back when you've grown up.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I challenged you to support your opinion. In the future I will simply let you dictate what is suppose to be fact. But, you certainly did throw a nice cry baby tantrum when I played your own game.
> 
> You are pathetic. Your retort was hardly, grown up.
Click to expand...


How about in future I just stick you on the ignore list? You don't bring anything to these debates.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I own 60 acres of forested land around my house that pulls out way more pollution out of the air than I can ever hope to create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless you buy Solar Panels, then the damage is done, then you burnt Coal and used Oil that never would of been used.
Click to expand...

All my electricity comes from hydro power, so I don't use coal for anything. As for the gas in my car, my 60 acres pulls out way more pollution that I put in.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the end of the day, it is simply not a viable solution at this point. In 2085, it will probably be some pretty good stuff. But right now, it's _killing_ America. It's costing us a fortune in illegal/unconstitutional tax dollars and it's causing energy prices to skyrocket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 2085 Solar and Wind will still need Oil to be built, in 2085 everything else will probably be some pretty good stuff, hence you will never need Solar and Wind power. The gap in performance will never close.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.


----------



## Mudda

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I own 60 acres of forested land around my house that pulls out way more pollution out of the air than I can ever hope to create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kinds of pollution are your trees pulling out of the air?
Click to expand...

Geez, people around here sure can be dumb sometimes. Look it up, fool.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goody. Fro $35,000 for the energy equivalent of a AAA battery to $30,000. What a reason to get giddy. And your "pollution" claim is comical. Does real pollution bother me? Sure. Which is why I genuinely love the _idea_ of clean, renewable energy. But this is where the idiocy of the liberal ideology gets _really_ comical. Most of the "pollution" that you people cry about is CO2. Well...CO2 is what plants live off of (like we live off of oxygen). The moment you rid the world of CO2, all plants will immediately die (and plants give off the oxygen we need). There is nothing better for the plants you tree-huggers literally shed tears over than CO2.
> 
> The problem with the libtard ideology is that it assumes everything occurs in a vacuum. There is no cause and effect. There is simple action A with no results from that. A great example is the wind turbines. Liberals are all frothy over how wonderful they are for the environment. You know what they are doing for the environment? Killing birds at an alarming rate. I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> US windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought
> 
> Same thing with solar panels. You know what solar farms are doing? Killing all plant life beneath them since everything below the sea of panels sits in shade all day. Plants need sun for photosynthesis. So again - I thought you people were trying to preserve nature?!?
> 
> Somewhere out there is the answer to all of our problems (I recently saw "Kinetic Wave Power" here which looks like an awesome solution) but unless one of those problems is one of the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government, the solutions damn well better come from the private sector. Period. It's the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, a company is working on solar shingles for your house, which will be awesome. You can keep paying the electric company if you want, I'm sure they'll still take your money.
> "Killing all plant life beneath them", that's pretty funny, so I guess extracting all the coal and the land that the generating plant sit on down take up any land that your plants could grow on. Man, that's really dumb, even for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how the frick does mining coal kill plants?!? You do realize that coal is in mines and underground (where there are no plants).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of coal mining these days is open pit mining, anyways even underground, the coal plant's footprint killed a hell of a lot of plant life. Much bigger than a solar farm, that's for sure. Then throw in the generating plant? It's no contest, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, you had already lost. Please try again.
Click to expand...

You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lost the moment you decided to eschew reality in favor of absurd liberal idealism.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At the end of the day, it is simply not a viable solution at this point. In 2085, it will probably be some pretty good stuff. But right now, it's _killing_ America. It's costing us a fortune in illegal/unconstitutional tax dollars and it's causing energy prices to skyrocket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 2085 Solar and Wind will still need Oil to be built, in 2085 everything else will probably be some pretty good stuff, hence you will never need Solar and Wind power. The gap in performance will never close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

Well at the rate the failed "green" technology is being developed, we know that it still won't be ready in 70 years...


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Geez, people around here sure can be dumb sometimes. Look it up, fool.



Right? Here you sit fully supporting a failed energy solution which is killing birds, killing plant life, creating next to _zero_ energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. People around here sure can be dumb sometimes.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, a company is working on solar shingles for your house, which will be awesome. You can keep paying the electric company if you want, I'm sure they'll still take your money.
> "Killing all plant life beneath them", that's pretty funny, so I guess extracting all the coal and the land that the generating plant sit on down take up any land that your plants could grow on. Man, that's really dumb, even for you.
> 
> 
> 
> And how the frick does mining coal kill plants?!? You do realize that coal is in mines and underground (where there are no plants).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of coal mining these days is open pit mining, anyways even underground, the coal plant's footprint killed a hell of a lot of plant life. Much bigger than a solar farm, that's for sure. Then throw in the generating plant? It's no contest, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, you had already lost. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lost the moment you decided to eschew reality in favor of absurd liberal idealism.
Click to expand...

Green technologies are heading in the right direction environment-wise, price-wise and in sustainability. Fossil fuels are simply running out. What then?


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, people around here sure can be dumb sometimes. Look it up, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right? Here you sit fully supporting a failed energy solution which is killing birds, killing plant life, creating next to _zero_ energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. People around here sure can be dumb sometimes.
Click to expand...

Dumbest. Thread. Ever. 

Guess who the OP is?


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.


Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years? 

Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.

And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal. 

Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> Green technologies are heading in the right direction environment-wise, price-wise and in sustainability. Fossil fuels are simply running out. What then?


When you run out of Fossil Fuel you can not build and replace Solar Panels or Wind Turbines. 

Green Technologies increase the use of Fossil Fuels, Green Technologies are now a problem.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?
> 
> Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.
> 
> And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.
> 
> Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.
Click to expand...

What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?


Progress, spending more to get less is not progress. Spending more, building the largest structures in the World while producing less power is a step backwards.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green technologies are heading in the right direction environment-wise, price-wise and in sustainability. Fossil fuels are simply running out. What then?
> 
> 
> 
> When you run out of Fossil Fuel you can not build and replace Solar Panels or Wind Turbines.
> 
> Green Technologies increase the use of Fossil Fuels, Green Technologies are now a problem.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's go with your premise that we stop green technologies because they waste too much fossil fuel. So what do you do when the fossil fuel runs out, since you haven't been trying to develop anything else?


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?
> 
> 
> 
> Progress, spending more to get less is not progress. Spending more, building the largest structures in the World while producing less power is a step backwards.
Click to expand...

Some of the largest structures in the world are dams to produce hydro power. You have a problem with hydro power?


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> Ok, let's go with your premise that we stop green technologies because they waste too much fossil fuel. So what do you do when the fossil fuel runs out, since you haven't been trying to develop anything else?


When, and if Fossil fuel runs out we are in serious trouble.Building Solar and Wind increase the use of Oil. Using Oil at a greater rate is hardly a solution to save oil.


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?
> 
> 
> 
> Progress, spending more to get less is not progress. Spending more, building the largest structures in the World while producing less power is a step backwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of the largest structures in the world are dams to produce hydro power. You have a problem with hydro power?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a problem with Hydro Power, Venezuela has a huge problem with Hydro Power. As does Brazil, it destroys the rivers, hence the fish, and now in times of drought Venezuela and Brazil are suffering power shortages.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mudda said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I own 60 acres of forested land around my house that pulls out way more pollution out of the air than I can ever hope to create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kinds of pollution are your trees pulling out of the air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geez, people around here sure can be dumb sometimes. Look it up, fool.
Click to expand...


I Googled "Mudda's silly claim about pollution" and didn't find any info.
Why don't you explain your claim?


----------



## Mudda

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The prices are coming down. Plus, you have to add the massive amounts of pollution that fossil fuel fired power plants emit. Doesn't that bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I own 60 acres of forested land around my house that pulls out way more pollution out of the air than I can ever hope to create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kinds of pollution are your trees pulling out of the air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geez, people around here sure can be dumb sometimes. Look it up, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Googled "Mudda's silly claim about pollution" and didn't find any info.
> Why don't you explain your claim?
Click to expand...

Dude wanted to know what kind of pollution trees pull out of the air. I told him to google it, he'll get all the info he needs.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?
> 
> 
> 
> Progress, spending more to get less is not progress. Spending more, building the largest structures in the World while producing less power is a step backwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of the largest structures in the world are dams to produce hydro power. You have a problem with hydro power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I have a problem with Hydro Power, Venezuela has a huge problem with Hydro Power. As does Brazil, it destroys the rivers, hence the fish, and now in times of drought Venezuela and Brazil are suffering power shortages.
Click to expand...

Just because those countries are fucked up doesn't mean hydro power doesn't work properly elsewhere. Look at Vegas as one example. No hydro, no city.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's go with your premise that we stop green technologies because they waste too much fossil fuel. So what do you do when the fossil fuel runs out, since you haven't been trying to develop anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> When, and if Fossil fuel runs out we are in serious trouble.Building Solar and Wind increase the use of Oil. Using Oil at a greater rate is hardly a solution to save oil.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mudda said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> 
> 
> I own 60 acres of forested land around my house that pulls out way more pollution out of the air than I can ever hope to create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kinds of pollution are your trees pulling out of the air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geez, people around here sure can be dumb sometimes. Look it up, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Googled "Mudda's silly claim about pollution" and didn't find any info.
> Why don't you explain your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude wanted to know what kind of pollution trees pull out of the air. I told him to google it, he'll get all the info he needs.
Click to expand...


You claimed your trees are pulling pollution out of the air.

Why won't you share the secret of your magic trees?


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how the frick does mining coal kill plants?!? You do realize that coal is in mines and underground (where there are no plants).
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of coal mining these days is open pit mining, anyways even underground, the coal plant's footprint killed a hell of a lot of plant life. Much bigger than a solar farm, that's for sure. Then throw in the generating plant? It's no contest, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, you had already lost. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lost the moment you decided to eschew reality in favor of absurd liberal idealism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Green technologies are heading in the right direction environment-wise, price-wise and in sustainability. Fossil fuels are simply running out. What then?
Click to expand...

They aren't "running out". At all. And so far, "green" technology isn't heading in _any_ direction. It's been in the same stalled/failed state since the 1970's. Only now it's killing plants and birds.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, let's go with your premise that we stop green technologies because they waste too much fossil fuel. So what do you do when the fossil fuel runs out, since you haven't been trying to develop anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> When, and if Fossil fuel runs out we are in serious trouble.Building Solar and Wind increase the use of Oil. Using Oil at a greater rate is hardly a solution to save oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?
Click to expand...

Gladly. So long as it occurs in the private sector where it belongs. If it needs government subsidizing, it's a failed concept and it's time to move on.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, people around here sure can be dumb sometimes. Look it up, fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right? Here you sit fully supporting a failed energy solution which is killing birds, killing plant life, creating next to _zero_ energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. People around here sure can be dumb sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbest. Thread. Ever.
> 
> Guess who the OP is?
Click to expand...

If it's so "dumb" why are you incapable of disputing anything?


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?
> 
> Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.
> 
> And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.
> 
> Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?
Click to expand...

Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem, we must increase the use of fossil fuels to build solar and wind power. So weak is solar and wind, forever we must increase the manufacturing, all day, all night, forever. Even now we have begun replacing older solar and wind that are failing, so along with new construction we have replacements to manufacture.
> 
> Solar and Wind are proven failures, your technological breakthrough is to build them bigger, and to build more.
> 
> Yes I care about pollution, now account for yours.
> 
> 
> 
> I own 60 acres of forested land around my house that pulls out way more pollution out of the air than I can ever hope to create.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kinds of pollution are your trees pulling out of the air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Geez, people around here sure can be dumb sometimes. Look it up, fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I Googled "Mudda's silly claim about pollution" and didn't find any info.
> Why don't you explain your claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude wanted to know what kind of pollution trees pull out of the air. I told him to google it, he'll get all the info he needs.
Click to expand...

Ironically - I had to explain this to you earlier while you were whining about CO2.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of coal mining these days is open pit mining, anyways even underground, the coal plant's footprint killed a hell of a lot of plant life. Much bigger than a solar farm, that's for sure. Then throw in the generating plant? It's no contest, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, you had already lost. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lost the moment you decided to eschew reality in favor of absurd liberal idealism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Green technologies are heading in the right direction environment-wise, price-wise and in sustainability. Fossil fuels are simply running out. What then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't "running out". At all. And so far, "green" technology isn't heading in _any_ direction. It's been in the same stalled/failed state since the 1970's. Only now it's killing plants and birds.
Click to expand...

Fossil fuels kill more people every year than wars, murders, and traffic accidents combined


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> If it needs government subsidizing, it's a failed concept and it's time to move on.


You mean like the oil and gas industry? Or the agriculture industry?


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Dude wanted to know what kind of pollution trees pull out of the air. I told him to google it, he'll get all the info he needs.



So to recap:

You want government to _illegally_ subsidize a "solution" that has failed so miserably, the private sector investor wants no part of it because it costs ungodly sums of money just to generate the energy equivalent of a AAA battery. And, once this pipe dream is finally achieved, we will see all plant life die (as plants require CO2 for survival and there will be none) as well as the extinction of bird life.

Isn't progressivism awesome?


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?
> 
> Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.
> 
> And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.
> 
> Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"
Click to expand...


People who didn't give up:
They Did Not Give Up


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it needs government subsidizing, it's a failed concept and it's time to move on.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the oil and gas industry? Or the agriculture industry?
Click to expand...

The left has created illegal "regulations" with the express purpose of making oil and gas so expensive, it puts the industry out of business. Nice try though.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude wanted to know what kind of pollution trees pull out of the air. I told him to google it, he'll get all the info he needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to recap:
> 
> You want government to _illegally_ subsidize a "solution" that has failed so miserably, the private sector investor wants no part of it because it costs ungodly sums of money just to generate the energy equivalent of a AAA battery. And, once this pipe dream is finally achieved, we will see all plant life die (as plants require CO2 for survival and there will be none) as well as the extinction of bird life.
> 
> Isn't progressivism awesome?
Click to expand...

It's hard to argue against nonsense. When you come up with something worth discussing, I'll respond.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?
> 
> Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.
> 
> And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.
> 
> Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who didn't give up:
> They Did Not Give Up
Click to expand...

And what do Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison all have in common? None of them were government subsidized. What does it say that after 30 posts, you've been unable to make a single rational case?


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it needs government subsidizing, it's a failed concept and it's time to move on.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the oil and gas industry? Or the agriculture industry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left has created illegal "regulations" with the express purpose of making oil and gas so expensive, it puts the industry out of business. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

So when did the oil and gas industry go out of business?


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> *It's hard to argue* against nonsense. When you come up with something worth discussing, I'll respond.



It is because I've proved the truth. And there is no arguing against the _truth_.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it needs government subsidizing, it's a failed concept and it's time to move on.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the oil and gas industry? Or the agriculture industry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left has created illegal "regulations" with the express purpose of making oil and gas so expensive, it puts the industry out of business. Nice try though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when did the oil and gas industry go out of business?
Click to expand...

It hasn't because it is such an economically viable solution. Like everything else it does, the Dumbocrat policy has failed. Kind of ironic and hilarious - Dumbocrat policy fails so badly, it even fails at making industry fail...


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?
> 
> Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.
> 
> And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.
> 
> Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who didn't give up:
> They Did Not Give Up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what do Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison have in common? None of them were government subsidized. What does it say that after 30 posts, you've been unable to make a single rational case?
Click to expand...

I just pointed out to you that the energy and food sectors are HEAVILY subsidized by governments. That ship has sailed. Move on.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's hard to argue* against nonsense. When you come up with something worth discussing, I'll respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is because I've proved the truth. And there is no arguing against the _truth_.
Click to expand...

Your "truth" is that "we will see all plant life die (as plants require CO2 for survival and there will be none) as well as the extinction of bird life" because of green technologies.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?
> 
> Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.
> 
> And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.
> 
> Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who didn't give up:
> They Did Not Give Up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what do Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison have in common? None of them were government subsidized. What does it say that after 30 posts, you've been unable to make a single rational case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just pointed out to you that the energy and food sectors are HEAVILY subsidized by governments. That ship has sailed. Move on.
Click to expand...

Well that's like pointing out that since armed robberies occur, rape is ok. You can't justify illegal activity with _other_ illegal activity. Only a liberal would attempt to make a case that absurd


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it needs government subsidizing, it's a failed concept and it's time to move on.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the oil and gas industry? Or the agriculture industry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left has created illegal "regulations" with the express purpose of making oil and gas so expensive, it puts the industry out of business. Nice try though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So when did the oil and gas industry go out of business?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It hasn't because it is such an economically viable solution. Like everything else it does, the Dumbocrat policy has failed. Kind of ironic and hilarious - Dumbocrat policy fails so badly, it even fails at making industry fail...
Click to expand...

The sad part is that you actually believe what you post, or well, see ya.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's hard to argue* against nonsense. When you come up with something worth discussing, I'll respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is because I've proved the truth. And there is no arguing against the _truth_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "truth" is that "we will see all plant life die (as plants require CO2 for survival and there will be none) as well as the extinction of bird life" because of green technologies.
Click to expand...

I've provided the links to how wind turbines are killing birds at an alarming rate. You ran from it. That's what liberals do with reality - run from it.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> The sad part is that you actually believe what you post, or well, see ya.



The sadder part is - you know I'm right but you elect ideology over reality.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?



So here is the question: if this stuff is _so_ good and you believe _so_ strongly in it, why don't you fund the research and development of it with _your_ money so we can return to Constitutional government? Game over.


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?


How is using fossil fuels faster, to build wind turbines and solar panels helping, it is not, you are using more oil to produce these "power plants", Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, they are the largest Power Plants in the World, by a magnitude of 100,000:1. How is increasing the use of Fossil Fuel now, at an extreme rate to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels saving Oil or Fossil Fuels? 

Without Fossil Fuels and Oil, you can build replacement parts for Solar or Wind Turbines, no Fossil Fuel your solution does not work.

You can not operate a Wind Farm with millions of gallons of oil as a lubricant, so without Oil the Wind Farm does not work at all.

How are you going to run industry with Solar and Wind Farms? That is not possible. 

So the solution is to use more Oil now, to build batteries? Which last how long?

You do not have a solution. We do.

It is called Nuclear Power. Works perfectly. Clean, with low upfront cost of Natural Resources.

How do you build Light Bulbs without HydroCarbons, Fossil Fuels, and Petroleum?


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?
> 
> Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.
> 
> And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.
> 
> Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who didn't give up:
> They Did Not Give Up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what do Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison have in common? None of them were government subsidized. What does it say that after 30 posts, you've been unable to make a single rational case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just pointed out to you that the energy and food sectors are HEAVILY subsidized by governments. That ship has sailed. Move on.
Click to expand...

The only subsidy is the subsidy to Wind and Solar and Geothermal. You can not count tax deductions from profitable corporations as a subsidy.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?
> 
> 
> 
> How is using fossil fuels faster, to build wind turbines and solar panels helping, it is not, you are using more oil to produce these "power plants", Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, they are the largest Power Plants in the World, by a magnitude of 100,000:1. How is increasing the use of Fossil Fuel now, at an extreme rate to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels saving Oil or Fossil Fuels?
> 
> Without Fossil Fuels and Oil, you can build replacement parts for Solar or Wind Turbines, no Fossil Fuel your solution does not work.
> 
> You can not operate a Wind Farm with millions of gallons of oil as a lubricant, so without Oil the Wind Farm does not work at all.
> 
> How are you going to run industry with Solar and Wind Farms? That is not possible.
> 
> So the solution is to use more Oil now, to build batteries? Which last how long?
> 
> You do not have a solution. We do.
> 
> It is called Nuclear Power. Works perfectly. Clean, with low upfront cost of Natural Resources.
> 
> How do you build Light Bulbs without HydroCarbons, Fossil Fuels, and Petroleum?
Click to expand...

I never said that petroleum wasn't useful, it is without a doubt very useful for things like you mention. But finding other sources to power cars and lights... is a good thing. 
As for nuclear, I think that the Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns proved how dangerous it is. So it's not a long term solution.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?
> 
> 
> 
> Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who didn't give up:
> They Did Not Give Up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what do Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison have in common? None of them were government subsidized. What does it say that after 30 posts, you've been unable to make a single rational case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just pointed out to you that the energy and food sectors are HEAVILY subsidized by governments. That ship has sailed. Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only subsidy is the subsidy to Wind and Solar and Geothermal. You can not count tax deductions from profitable corporations as a subsidy.
Click to expand...

You might not, but everyone else does.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So here is the question: if this stuff is _so_ good and you believe _so_ strongly in it, why don't you fund the research and development of it with _your_ money so we can return to Constitutional government? Game over.
Click to expand...

I do fund it with my tax dollars. Game over for sure.


----------



## Mudda

Rottweiler said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's hard to argue* against nonsense. When you come up with something worth discussing, I'll respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is because I've proved the truth. And there is no arguing against the _truth_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "truth" is that "we will see all plant life die (as plants require CO2 for survival and there will be none) as well as the extinction of bird life" because of green technologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've provided the links to how wind turbines are killing birds at an alarming rate. You ran from it. That's what liberals do with reality - run from it.
Click to expand...

I never said that birds weren't killed by wind turbines and whatever. But you said "the extinction of bird life", which is irrational.
And you should look up how many birds and animals are killed in oil spills and the like. You'd learn something.


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?
> 
> 
> 
> How is using fossil fuels faster, to build wind turbines and solar panels helping, it is not, you are using more oil to produce these "power plants", Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, they are the largest Power Plants in the World, by a magnitude of 100,000:1. How is increasing the use of Fossil Fuel now, at an extreme rate to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels saving Oil or Fossil Fuels?
> 
> Without Fossil Fuels and Oil, you can build replacement parts for Solar or Wind Turbines, no Fossil Fuel your solution does not work.
> 
> You can not operate a Wind Farm with millions of gallons of oil as a lubricant, so without Oil the Wind Farm does not work at all.
> 
> How are you going to run industry with Solar and Wind Farms? That is not possible.
> 
> So the solution is to use more Oil now, to build batteries? Which last how long?
> 
> You do not have a solution. We do.
> 
> It is called Nuclear Power. Works perfectly. Clean, with low upfront cost of Natural Resources.
> 
> How do you build Light Bulbs without HydroCarbons, Fossil Fuels, and Petroleum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that petroleum wasn't useful, it is without a doubt very useful for things like you mention. But finding other sources to power cars and lights... is a good thing.
> As for nuclear, I think that the Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns proved how dangerous it is. So it's not a long term solution.
Click to expand...

We have no Nuclear power plants like Chernobyl, which was caused completely by Human Error. 

We have the exact same Fukushima power plants in the USA, and not one is at risk of being hit by a Tsunami.

So explain how those two incidents can happen here in the USA. (not to mention that technology is 60 years old!).

And, how are you going to keep Solar, Wind, and Geothermal operating without Oil or Fossil fuels? There is no solution. So you claim we don't have a plan yet your plan does not work, not now, not in the future. I would love to see you answer, nobody can, so do not feel bad.


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?
> 
> 
> 
> How is using fossil fuels faster, to build wind turbines and solar panels helping, it is not, you are using more oil to produce these "power plants", Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, they are the largest Power Plants in the World, by a magnitude of 100,000:1. How is increasing the use of Fossil Fuel now, at an extreme rate to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels saving Oil or Fossil Fuels?
> 
> Without Fossil Fuels and Oil, you can build replacement parts for Solar or Wind Turbines, no Fossil Fuel your solution does not work.
> 
> You can not operate a Wind Farm with millions of gallons of oil as a lubricant, so without Oil the Wind Farm does not work at all.
> 
> How are you going to run industry with Solar and Wind Farms? That is not possible.
> 
> So the solution is to use more Oil now, to build batteries? Which last how long?
> 
> You do not have a solution. We do.
> 
> It is called Nuclear Power. Works perfectly. Clean, with low upfront cost of Natural Resources.
> 
> How do you build Light Bulbs without HydroCarbons, Fossil Fuels, and Petroleum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that petroleum wasn't useful, it is without a doubt very useful for things like you mention. But finding other sources to power cars and lights... is a good thing.
> As for nuclear, I think that the Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns proved how dangerous it is. So it's not a long term solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no Nuclear power plants like Chernobyl, which was caused completely by Human Error.
> 
> We have the exact same Fukushima power plants in the USA, and not one is at risk of being hit by a Tsunami.
> 
> So explain how those two incidents can happen here in the USA. (not to mention that technology is 60 years old!).
> 
> And, how are you going to keep Solar, Wind, and Geothermal operating without Oil or Fossil fuels? There is no solution. So you claim we don't have a plan yet your plan does not work, not now, not in the future. I would love to see you answer, nobody can, so do not feel bad.
Click to expand...

I just agreed that fossil fuel products will always be useful to make plastics, lubricating oil...

As for nuclear plants in the US, those on the west coast are at a massive risk from earthquakes. Are you suggesting that you didn't know that?

And to think that you know that green technologies won't work in the future must make you a real fortune teller, and here I was thinking that they were all fakers.


----------



## elektra

Mudda said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?
> 
> 
> 
> How is using fossil fuels faster, to build wind turbines and solar panels helping, it is not, you are using more oil to produce these "power plants", Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, they are the largest Power Plants in the World, by a magnitude of 100,000:1. How is increasing the use of Fossil Fuel now, at an extreme rate to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels saving Oil or Fossil Fuels?
> 
> Without Fossil Fuels and Oil, you can build replacement parts for Solar or Wind Turbines, no Fossil Fuel your solution does not work.
> 
> You can not operate a Wind Farm with millions of gallons of oil as a lubricant, so without Oil the Wind Farm does not work at all.
> 
> How are you going to run industry with Solar and Wind Farms? That is not possible.
> 
> So the solution is to use more Oil now, to build batteries? Which last how long?
> 
> You do not have a solution. We do.
> 
> It is called Nuclear Power. Works perfectly. Clean, with low upfront cost of Natural Resources.
> 
> How do you build Light Bulbs without HydroCarbons, Fossil Fuels, and Petroleum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that petroleum wasn't useful, it is without a doubt very useful for things like you mention. But finding other sources to power cars and lights... is a good thing.
> As for nuclear, I think that the Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns proved how dangerous it is. So it's not a long term solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no Nuclear power plants like Chernobyl, which was caused completely by Human Error.
> 
> We have the exact same Fukushima power plants in the USA, and not one is at risk of being hit by a Tsunami.
> 
> So explain how those two incidents can happen here in the USA. (not to mention that technology is 60 years old!).
> 
> And, how are you going to keep Solar, Wind, and Geothermal operating without Oil or Fossil fuels? There is no solution. So you claim we don't have a plan yet your plan does not work, not now, not in the future. I would love to see you answer, nobody can, so do not feel bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just agreed that fossil fuel products will always be useful to make plastics, lubricating oil...
> 
> As for nuclear plants in the US, those on the west coast are at a massive risk from earthquakes. Are you suggesting that you didn't know that?
> 
> And to think that you know that green technologies won't work in the future must make you a real fortune teller, and here I was thinking that they were all fakers.
Click to expand...

Which Nuclear Plants on the West Coast are at risk? 

Green Technologies, how will they work in the future without Oil and Fossil Fuels (which are being consumed at an extreme rate now in the manufacture of green technologies).

How will Green Technologies work without Fossil Fuels? What is the solution, you claim we have no solution yet I have to hound you for yours!

And of course, you will have to imagine something great that may destroy whichever nuclear plants you believe are in danger, so go ahead tell us which plants and how what will happen to them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mudda said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you had already lost. Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lost the moment you decided to eschew reality in favor of absurd liberal idealism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Green technologies are heading in the right direction environment-wise, price-wise and in sustainability. Fossil fuels are simply running out. What then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't "running out". At all. And so far, "green" technology isn't heading in _any_ direction. It's been in the same stalled/failed state since the 1970's. Only now it's killing plants and birds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fossil fuels kill more people every year than wars, murders, and traffic accidents combined
Click to expand...


Fossil fuels make our high density, high tech lifestyle possible.

Can't run our technology on more expensive, less reliable, "green energy".


----------



## Mudda

elektra said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?
> 
> 
> 
> How is using fossil fuels faster, to build wind turbines and solar panels helping, it is not, you are using more oil to produce these "power plants", Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, they are the largest Power Plants in the World, by a magnitude of 100,000:1. How is increasing the use of Fossil Fuel now, at an extreme rate to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels saving Oil or Fossil Fuels?
> 
> Without Fossil Fuels and Oil, you can build replacement parts for Solar or Wind Turbines, no Fossil Fuel your solution does not work.
> 
> You can not operate a Wind Farm with millions of gallons of oil as a lubricant, so without Oil the Wind Farm does not work at all.
> 
> How are you going to run industry with Solar and Wind Farms? That is not possible.
> 
> So the solution is to use more Oil now, to build batteries? Which last how long?
> 
> You do not have a solution. We do.
> 
> It is called Nuclear Power. Works perfectly. Clean, with low upfront cost of Natural Resources.
> 
> How do you build Light Bulbs without HydroCarbons, Fossil Fuels, and Petroleum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said that petroleum wasn't useful, it is without a doubt very useful for things like you mention. But finding other sources to power cars and lights... is a good thing.
> As for nuclear, I think that the Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns proved how dangerous it is. So it's not a long term solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have no Nuclear power plants like Chernobyl, which was caused completely by Human Error.
> 
> We have the exact same Fukushima power plants in the USA, and not one is at risk of being hit by a Tsunami.
> 
> So explain how those two incidents can happen here in the USA. (not to mention that technology is 60 years old!).
> 
> And, how are you going to keep Solar, Wind, and Geothermal operating without Oil or Fossil fuels? There is no solution. So you claim we don't have a plan yet your plan does not work, not now, not in the future. I would love to see you answer, nobody can, so do not feel bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just agreed that fossil fuel products will always be useful to make plastics, lubricating oil...
> 
> As for nuclear plants in the US, those on the west coast are at a massive risk from earthquakes. Are you suggesting that you didn't know that?
> 
> And to think that you know that green technologies won't work in the future must make you a real fortune teller, and here I was thinking that they were all fakers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Nuclear Plants on the West Coast are at risk?
> 
> Green Technologies, how will they work in the future without Oil and Fossil Fuels (which are being consumed at an extreme rate now in the manufacture of green technologies).
> 
> How will Green Technologies work without Fossil Fuels? What is the solution, you claim we have no solution yet I have to hound you for yours!
> 
> And of course, you will have to imagine something great that may destroy whichever nuclear plants you believe are in danger, so go ahead tell us which plants and how what will happen to them.
Click to expand...

Any plant near the San Andreas fault is at risk for starters. Or the west coast in case of a tsunami from the earthquake(s).

And I keep repeating that yes, fossil fuels will always have a use as lubricants and whatever. Stop beating that dead horse.


----------



## Mudda

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, you had already lost. Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lost the moment you decided to eschew reality in favor of absurd liberal idealism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Green technologies are heading in the right direction environment-wise, price-wise and in sustainability. Fossil fuels are simply running out. What then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't "running out". At all. And so far, "green" technology isn't heading in _any_ direction. It's been in the same stalled/failed state since the 1970's. Only now it's killing plants and birds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fossil fuels kill more people every year than wars, murders, and traffic accidents combined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels make our high density, high tech lifestyle possible.
> 
> Can't run our technology on more expensive, less reliable, "green energy".
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean that we have to stop trying to make the green things work. Why is everyone against research...?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mudda said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're technologies are killing birds and plant life, create next to zero energy, and cost an ungodly amount of money. It's no contest. _You_ lost the moment you decided to eschew reality in favor of absurd liberal idealism.
> 
> 
> 
> Green technologies are heading in the right direction environment-wise, price-wise and in sustainability. Fossil fuels are simply running out. What then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They aren't "running out". At all. And so far, "green" technology isn't heading in _any_ direction. It's been in the same stalled/failed state since the 1970's. Only now it's killing plants and birds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fossil fuels kill more people every year than wars, murders, and traffic accidents combined
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels make our high density, high tech lifestyle possible.
> 
> Can't run our technology on more expensive, less reliable, "green energy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't mean that we have to stop trying to make the green things work. Why is everyone against research...?
Click to expand...


Research is great. Shoveling tax dollars to "green energy" cronies is a bad idea.


----------



## Mindful

The Great Goose said:


> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.



Except that you can't. It goes into the grid, and you get a discount  on your electricity bills.

At least that's how it works in Germany.


----------



## The Great Goose

Mindful said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you can't. It goes into the grid, and you get a discount  on your electricity bills.
> 
> At least that's how it works in Germany.
Click to expand...

What about on a caravan or a boat? Or a house thats not connected to the grid?


----------



## Mindful

The Great Goose said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you can't. It goes into the grid, and you get a discount  on your electricity bills.
> 
> At least that's how it works in Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about on a caravan or a boat? Or a house thats not connected to the grid?
Click to expand...


Don't know.


----------



## Mindful

I looked it up. There's plenty of info on Google.


----------



## P@triot

Yet another example of failed "green" energy...

Increases in costs at Buffalo’s RiverBend site reach $50 million  - The Buffalo News


----------



## Moonglow

Good thing the Sun does not listen to the Patriot..


----------



## P@triot

Moonglow said:


> Good thing the Sun does not listen to the Patriot..


Unfortunately, liberal politicians do not listen to science, facts, data, and reason...


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> Yet another example of failed "green" energy...
> 
> Increases in costs at Buffalo’s RiverBend site reach $50 million  - The Buffalo News


What a lying dumb fuck you are. The increase in costs are because the prior owners of the land left it contaminated, and when the original estimates were made, this was not known. It is right there in the article.

Increases in costs at Buffalo’s RiverBend site reach $50 million  - The Buffalo News

That being the case, and since you were the one posting the article originally, one can only assume that your are intentionally lying, or did not even read the article that you posted, which make you terminally stupid.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another example of failed "green" energy...
> 
> Increases in costs at Buffalo’s RiverBend site reach $50 million  - The Buffalo News
> 
> 
> 
> What a lying dumb fuck you are. The increase in costs are because the prior owners of the land left it contaminated, and when the original estimates were made, this was not known. It is right there in the article.
> 
> Increases in costs at Buffalo’s RiverBend site reach $50 million  - The Buffalo News
> 
> That being the case, and since you were the one posting the article originally, one can only assume that your are intentionally lying, or did not even read the article that you posted, which make you terminally stupid.
Click to expand...

So _how_ did I "lie"?!? It's yet another "green" technology company with massive overruns and an unsustainable business model (can you say "Solyndra" junior?). The fact that they didn't even do their due diligence on the land and contamination just shows they are typical libtards. Incapable of running a business.


----------



## Old Rocks

What an ass you are. The contamination of the land was done by a prior business. And the state stated that the land was clean. Going to be some culpability on the part of the state, and the prior owner, if they are not bankrupt.

Given that there are many utilities in many states actively working to put companies like Solar City out of business. However, that will, in the end, result in those utilities going out of business themselves. We are going to see a distributed grid in the near future, and will see federal laws stating that all generation from whatever source has to have access to the grid at prevailing rates.

That fools like you don't like any kind of change is clearly evident. You are the kind that refuse vaccines, and think if it doesn't go V-ROOM--V-ROOM, it can't be mobile. Well, stand back, Charley, much of the future is already here, and it doesn't give a damn about losers like you.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> What an ass you are. The contamination of the land was done by a prior business. And the state stated that the land was clean. Going to be some culpability on the part of the state, and the prior owner, if they are not bankrupt.
> 
> Given that there are many utilities in many states actively working to put companies like Solar City out of business. However, that will, in the end, result in those utilities going out of business themselves. We are going to see a distributed grid in the near future, and will see federal laws stating that all generation from whatever source has to have access to the grid at prevailing rates.
> 
> That fools like you don't like any kind of change is clearly evident. You are the kind that refuse vaccines, and think if it doesn't go V-ROOM--V-ROOM, it can't be mobile. Well, stand back, Charley, much of the future is already here, and it doesn't give a damn about losers like you.


Wow....someone is angry. The wrong and the uninformed usually are. For starters - I'm fine with change. What I don't like is *failure*. And that's what idiot liberalism gives us: *failure*. Force us to spend tens of millions of dollars on a technology that gives us the energy equivalent of a AAA battery. That's stupid on a level that could only come from liberalism. Stand back junior. Let the adults handle reality. You just play with your toys in the corner and will make sure your fed and your little chin is wiped.


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL. Why sure you are just fine with failure. After all, you predicted a Romney Landslide. LOL

Wind is now the most economical way to produce electricity. And, as soon as the grid scale batteries go into full production, will become an even bigger component of the grid. As of the end of 2015, there is 74,332 mw of installed wind in the US.

WINDExchange: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity

Solar capacity is now at 13,406 mw, not counting rooftop solar. Solar generation put on the grid was 12,141 million kwh.

Care to add any more comments proving how stupid that you can be?


----------



## ABikerSailor

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> What an ass you are. The contamination of the land was done by a prior business. And the state stated that the land was clean. Going to be some culpability on the part of the state, and the prior owner, if they are not bankrupt.
> 
> Given that there are many utilities in many states actively working to put companies like Solar City out of business. However, that will, in the end, result in those utilities going out of business themselves. We are going to see a distributed grid in the near future, and will see federal laws stating that all generation from whatever source has to have access to the grid at prevailing rates.
> 
> That fools like you don't like any kind of change is clearly evident. You are the kind that refuse vaccines, and think if it doesn't go V-ROOM--V-ROOM, it can't be mobile. Well, stand back, Charley, much of the future is already here, and it doesn't give a damn about losers like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....someone is angry. The wrong and the uninformed usually are. For starters - I'm fine with change. What I don't like is *failure*. And that's what idiot liberalism gives us: *failure*. Force us to spend tens of millions of dollars on a technology that gives us the energy equivalent of a AAA battery. That's stupid on a level that could only come from liberalism. Stand back junior. Let the adults handle reality. You just play with your toys in the corner and will make sure your fed and your little chin is wiped.
Click to expand...


Yanno...................a cell phone at full charge requires a lot more than the equivalent of just one AAA battery.  They require a lot more than that, and I know, because I have lights that use a full THREE AAA batteries, and they don't last that long.

Interestingly enough, there are solar powered chargers that have a grand total of about one and a half of square feet in area, that can charge that same phone to full power in about 3 hours.

Oh yeah.................by the way.....................you can hook up a battery charger to the same solar panel and charge up 4 AAA batteries in about the same amount of time. 

Battery Joe's in Amarillo TX is where I saw them.


----------



## MisterBeale

*
So you think we have an energy problem?


No, we have a political problem.

index*


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Why sure you are just fine with failure. After all, you predicted a Romney Landslide. LOL
> 
> Wind is now the most economical way to produce electricity. And, as soon as the grid scale batteries go into full production, will become an even bigger component of the grid. As of the end of 2015, there is 74,332 mw of installed wind in the US.
> 
> WINDExchange: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity
> 
> Solar capacity is now at 13,406 mw, not counting rooftop solar. Solar generation put on the grid was 12,141 million kwh.
> 
> Care to add any more comments proving how stupid that you can be?


Old Rocks is an old buffoon. Solar capacity is now at 13,406mw? Really? That's fantastic. Except that you're adding all solar panels in America _combined_ jack-ass. We're talking about a single panel, _stupid_. How much does a single solar panel produce? Next to nothing. And what does it cost? At the very lowest end, $10,000. At the high end, over $14,000. It takes 4 solar panels to run an entire home. That means you're looking at anywhere from $40,000 to $56,000 to run your home (don't try to do the math old idiot, you'll only hurt your brain - just trust us on this one). Considering my electric bill runs between $100 - $200 per month, that means I'm roughly around 30 years of electric bills before I just break even on the investment of the idiot failed solar technology. And guess what is going to happen during those 30 years? The panels will need to be replaced jack ass. They won't last 30 years.

Thank you for posting and showing everyone what an idiot you are. Would you like to double-down and try again? Dumb-ass.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> After all, you predicted a Romney Landslide.



The media predicted a Romney landslide jack-ass. I simply shared the information that made you vagina get all tied up in knots. And in all fairness to the media - they couldn't account for the rampant voter fraud by Dumbocrats. They also couldn't account for the voter suppression through the IRS at the direction of Obama. Lastly, they couldn't anticipate that Obama would release a falsified jobs report before the November elections. All of it has been _proven_ dumb-ass. Much like your ignorance.


----------



## P@triot

Oh the irony.... We have to listen to liberal bleeding heart nonsense about how they are so heartbroken for so many that are suffering while the "evil" 1% swims in a sea of wealth. And yet here they are adamantly supporting then devious "green" agenda which will make millions suffer while Al Gore and few other liberal masters get filthy rich...

*University of Cambridge engineering professor warns that the globalist effort to cut carbon emissions will result in widespread poverty, starvation, and civil strife.*
“Over the last 200 years, fossil fuels have provided the route out of grinding poverty for many people in the world,” writes M.J. Kelly. “A rapid decarbonization is simply impossible over the next 20 years unless the trend of a growing number who succeed to improve their lot is stalled by rich and middle-class people downgrading their own standard of living.”

Rapid decarbonization, as proposed by the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris, will result in “large parts of the population [dying] from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society.”

Engineer: Decarbonization Will Result in Mass Starvation, Poverty, Civil Strife


----------



## ABikerSailor

You seem to keep trying to keep this thread alive by posting a whole lot of bullshit.

Got news for you, nobody cares, because if they did, this thread would have a whole lot more going on for it. 

I'm just posting for the irony.


----------



## Old Rocks

MisterBeale said:


> *So you think we have an energy problem?
> 
> 
> No, we have a political problem.
> 
> index*


Yep. 
A bunch of fucked up knownothing "Conservatives" standing in the way of progress in the 21st century. They simply cannot get their minds out of the 19th century.


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Why sure you are just fine with failure. After all, you predicted a Romney Landslide. LOL
> 
> Wind is now the most economical way to produce electricity. And, as soon as the grid scale batteries go into full production, will become an even bigger component of the grid. As of the end of 2015, there is 74,332 mw of installed wind in the US.
> 
> WINDExchange: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity
> 
> Solar capacity is now at 13,406 mw, not counting rooftop solar. Solar generation put on the grid was 12,141 million kwh.
> 
> Care to add any more comments proving how stupid that you can be?
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks is an old buffoon. Solar capacity is now at 13,406mw? Really? That's fantastic. Except that you're adding all solar panels in America _combined_ jack-ass. We're talking about a single panel, _stupid_. How much does a single solar panel produce? Next to nothing. And what does it cost? At the very lowest end, $10,000. At the high end, over $14,000. It takes 4 solar panels to run an entire home. That means you're looking at anywhere from $40,000 to $56,000 to run your home (don't try to do the math old idiot, you'll only hurt your brain - just trust us on this one). Considering my electric bill runs between $100 - $200 per month, that means I'm roughly around 30 years of electric bills before I just break even on the investment of the idiot failed solar technology. And guess what is going to happen during those 30 years? The panels will need to be replaced jack ass. They won't last 30 years.
> 
> Thank you for posting and showing everyone what an idiot you are. Would you like to double-down and try again? Dumb-ass.
Click to expand...

My goodness, Patriot, what a fucked up liar you are. Is this the way you conduct business in real life? 

Suniva - Wholesale Solar

At this site you can find a single Suniva panel, 340 watts, for $340 dollars. Or you can buy a pallet of 25 panels, 285 watts each, for $7000, that represents 7125 watts of generation. 

And that is just one wholesale house. Google wholesale solar, and you can find whole systems for sale for far less than the amount that you claim. 

Also, note that the numbers stated were for solar, not counting the rooftop.


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> Oh the irony.... We have to listen to liberal bleeding heart nonsense about how they are so heartbroken for so many that are suffering while the "evil" 1% swims in a sea of wealth. And yet here they are adamantly supporting then devious "green" agenda which will make millions suffer while Al Gore and few other liberal masters get filthy rich...
> 
> *University of Cambridge engineering professor warns that the globalist effort to cut carbon emissions will result in widespread poverty, starvation, and civil strife.*
> “Over the last 200 years, fossil fuels have provided the route out of grinding poverty for many people in the world,” writes M.J. Kelly. “A rapid decarbonization is simply impossible over the next 20 years unless the trend of a growing number who succeed to improve their lot is stalled by rich and middle-class people downgrading their own standard of living.”
> 
> Rapid decarbonization, as proposed by the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris, will result in “large parts of the population [dying] from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society.”
> 
> Engineer: Decarbonization Will Result in Mass Starvation, Poverty, Civil Strife


So full of shit you are. Assholes from the fossil fuel industry crying about the fact that for many small third world nations, the alternatives, wind and solar, are far cheaper for them than fossil fuels. And that is the way they will go.


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL. Alex Jones. So that is where you get your information. LOL


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Why sure you are just fine with failure. After all, you predicted a Romney Landslide. LOL
> 
> Wind is now the most economical way to produce electricity. And, as soon as the grid scale batteries go into full production, will become an even bigger component of the grid. As of the end of 2015, there is 74,332 mw of installed wind in the US.
> 
> WINDExchange: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity
> 
> Solar capacity is now at 13,406 mw, not counting rooftop solar. Solar generation put on the grid was 12,141 million kwh.
> 
> Care to add any more comments proving how stupid that you can be?
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks is an old buffoon. Solar capacity is now at 13,406mw? Really? That's fantastic. Except that you're adding all solar panels in America _combined_ jack-ass. We're talking about a single panel, _stupid_. How much does a single solar panel produce? Next to nothing. And what does it cost? At the very lowest end, $10,000. At the high end, over $14,000. It takes 4 solar panels to run an entire home. That means you're looking at anywhere from $40,000 to $56,000 to run your home (don't try to do the math old idiot, you'll only hurt your brain - just trust us on this one). Considering my electric bill runs between $100 - $200 per month, that means I'm roughly around 30 years of electric bills before I just break even on the investment of the idiot failed solar technology. And guess what is going to happen during those 30 years? The panels will need to be replaced jack ass. They won't last 30 years.
> 
> Thank you for posting and showing everyone what an idiot you are. Would you like to double-down and try again? Dumb-ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goodness, Patriot, what a fucked up liar you are. Is this the way you conduct business in real life?
> 
> Suniva - Wholesale Solar
> 
> At this site you can find a single Suniva panel, 340 watts, for $340 dollars. Or you can buy a pallet of 25 panels, 285 watts each, for $7000, that represents 7125 watts of generation.
> 
> And that is just one wholesale house. Google wholesale solar, and you can find whole systems for sale for far less than the amount that you claim.
> 
> Also, note that the numbers stated were for solar, not counting the rooftop.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha! Please keep posting? Please??? Each time you post you show everyone want an ignorant little fuck-tart you are. First you start off by saying that solar panels produce over 13,000 mega-watts of electricity. Then when I expose the fact that you're talking about _every_ solar panel installed across the entire United States and expose you for the ignorant fool that you are (who can't even read and comprehend the discussion at hand), you back track with this laughable and asinine lie that you can run an entire home off solar panels for $300. Here are the facts asshat (right from the front page of Google):

At the time of this writing, the installed cost of solar panels was between *$7-$9 per watt*: A 5 kW system would cost *around $25,000*-*$35,000*. Many utility companies offer incentives, and some subsidize as much as 50% of system costs.

*How Much Do Solar Panels Cost to Install on a US Home?*
https://www.*solarpower*authority.com/how-much-does-it-*cost*-to-install-*solar*-on-an-aver...

I said around $40,000 on my low end and they are showing $35,000 on their high end - so I was right around the accurate price. I watched a special where they put them in to run an entire house off the grid asshole and it took four of those massive panels at around $10,000 - $12,000 per panel. So they've apparently come down a little bit. One would still have to a monumental asshole to drop $35k when that's like 30 years of electric bills off of traditional energy (and during those 30 years those panels will have to be replaced, repaired, maintenance, etc.).


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Alex Jones. So that is where you get your information. LOL


At least I get information. You don't even do that Mr. "It Cost $300 to install enough solar panels to run an entire home". 

By the way - that didn't come from Alex Jones you fuck'n moron. It came from Michael J. Kelly - a University of Cambridge engineering professor you tool. Do you have any idea how dumb you look trying to attribute information from a Cambridge engineering professor to Alex Jones?!?! 

It was InfoWars that simply _reported_ on the story.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> So full of shit you are. Assholes from the fossil fuel industry crying about the fact that for many small third world nations, the alternatives, wind and solar, are far cheaper for them than fossil fuels. And that is the way they will go.



Oh yeah....$35,000 - $40,000 just to have enough solar panels to run a basic home is soooooooo much "cheaper". Fuck'n moron :elsa_doh:


----------



## MisterBeale

Old Rocks said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So you think we have an energy problem?
> 
> 
> No, we have a political problem.
> 
> index*
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> A bunch of fucked up knownothing "Conservatives" standing in the way of progress in the 21st century. They simply cannot get their minds out of the 19th century.
Click to expand...

Why is suppression of energy technology by the Deep State a conservative issue?


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> A bunch of fucked up knownothing "Conservatives" standing in the way of progress in the 21st century. They simply cannot get their minds out of the 19th century.



Typical liberal asshole. First, illustrates his illiteracy by spelling know-nothing as "knownothing" (it's not one word _stupid_). Second, he speaks about "progress" but _only_ if someone else is paying for it. You won't see Old Greedy dig into his pockets and pony up the cash for "green" R&D. Nope. He wants government to place a gun to my head and make me pay for it. Typical greedy, selfish, liberal.


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Why sure you are just fine with failure. After all, you predicted a Romney Landslide. LOL
> 
> Wind is now the most economical way to produce electricity. And, as soon as the grid scale batteries go into full production, will become an even bigger component of the grid. As of the end of 2015, there is 74,332 mw of installed wind in the US.
> 
> WINDExchange: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity
> 
> Solar capacity is now at 13,406 mw, not counting rooftop solar. Solar generation put on the grid was 12,141 million kwh.
> 
> Care to add any more comments proving how stupid that you can be?
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks is an old buffoon. Solar capacity is now at 13,406mw? Really? That's fantastic. Except that you're adding all solar panels in America _combined_ jack-ass. We're talking about a single panel, _stupid_. How much does a single solar panel produce? Next to nothing. And what does it cost? At the very lowest end, $10,000. At the high end, over $14,000. It takes 4 solar panels to run an entire home. That means you're looking at anywhere from $40,000 to $56,000 to run your home (don't try to do the math old idiot, you'll only hurt your brain - just trust us on this one). Considering my electric bill runs between $100 - $200 per month, that means I'm roughly around 30 years of electric bills before I just break even on the investment of the idiot failed solar technology. And guess what is going to happen during those 30 years? The panels will need to be replaced jack ass. They won't last 30 years.
> 
> Thank you for posting and showing everyone what an idiot you are. Would you like to double-down and try again? Dumb-ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My goodness, Patriot, what a fucked up liar you are. Is this the way you conduct business in real life?
> 
> Suniva - Wholesale Solar
> 
> At this site you can find a single Suniva panel, 340 watts, for $340 dollars. Or you can buy a pallet of 25 panels, 285 watts each, for $7000, that represents 7125 watts of generation.
> 
> And that is just one wholesale house. Google wholesale solar, and you can find whole systems for sale for far less than the amount that you claim.
> 
> Also, note that the numbers stated were for solar, not counting the rooftop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahahaha! Please keep posting? Please??? Each time you post you show everyone want an ignorant little fuck-tart you are. First you start off by saying that solar panels produce over 13,000 mega-watts of electricity. Then when I expose the fact that you're talking about _every_ solar panel installed across the entire United States and expose you for the ignorant fool that you are (who can't even read and comprehend the discussion at hand), you back track with this laughable and asinine lie that you can run an entire home off solar panels for $300. Here are the facts asshat (right from the front page of Google):
> 
> At the time of this writing, the installed cost of solar panels was between *$7-$9 per watt*: A 5 kW system would cost *around $25,000*-*$35,000*. Many utility companies offer incentives, and some subsidize as much as 50% of system costs.
> 
> *How Much Do Solar Panels Cost to Install on a US Home?*
> https://www.*solarpower*authority.com/how-much-does-it-*cost*-to-install-*solar*-on-an-aver...
> 
> I said around $40,000 on my low end and they are showing $35,000 on their high end - so I was right around the accurate price. I watched a special where they put them in to run an entire house off the grid asshole and it took four of those massive panels at around $10,000 - $12,000 per panel. So they've apparently come down a little bit. One would still have to a monumental asshole to drop $35k when that's like 30 years of electric bills off of traditional energy (and during those 30 years those panels will have to be replaced, repaired, maintenance, etc.).
Click to expand...

Here is what you said;

" How much does a single solar panel produce? Next to nothing. And what does it cost? At the very lowest end, $10,000. At the high end, over $14,000. It takes 4 solar panels to run an entire home."

I pointed out two panels that produced 285 and 340 watts. And pointed out that enough panels to two a house, over 7 kw worth, was only $7000. Now here is a company where you can get a complete 6.84 kw system for $11,855;

Grid tie Solar Power Systems for your home - Grid-tie Home Solar Panel Systems

Now if you are of reasonable intellect, you can do the work yourself. All you need to do is hire an electrician to hook the system into you box.


----------



## ABikerSailor

P@triot is a confused individual.  I just did a Google search for "buy home solar panels", and I saw that you could get a 6.3 KW grid tied system for around 9,900 dollars (and being tied into the grid means that when you make more than you use, the power company has to pay YOU for the electricity). 

That was at the high end. 

At the low end was a solar panel that was 4 ft by 12 ft for 173.37.

Nope............P@triot is full of crap. 

Google


----------



## P@triot

ABikerSailor said:


> P@triot is a confused individual.  I just did a Google search for "buy home solar panels", and I saw that you could get a 6.3 KW grid tied system for around 9,900 dollars (and being tied into the grid means that when you make more than you use, the power company has to pay YOU for the electricity).
> 
> That was at the high end.
> 
> At the low end was a solar panel that was 4 ft by 12 ft for 173.37.
> 
> Nope............P@triot is full of crap.
> 
> Google


The link is above junior. You can't read, you can't click, and you can't Google. No wonder you need government to take care of you.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, Patriot, if you are too stupid to do that simple work yourself, you deserve to pay over $20,000 to have someone else do the work.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Patriot, if you are too stupid to do that simple work yourself, you deserve to pay over $20,000 to have someone else do the work.


If you're dumb enough to support the failed "green" energy then _you_ deserve to pay $40,000 to have your house converted. I'll continue to drop a mere $1,200 per year in energy bills. You're so stupid you'll invest in something that requires 40 years just to break even on your ROI (I'd tell you to Google that but you've already proven you're incapable of using a computer or Google).


----------



## ABikerSailor

P@triot said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot is a confused individual.  I just did a Google search for "buy home solar panels", and I saw that you could get a 6.3 KW grid tied system for around 9,900 dollars (and being tied into the grid means that when you make more than you use, the power company has to pay YOU for the electricity).
> 
> That was at the high end.
> 
> At the low end was a solar panel that was 4 ft by 12 ft for 173.37.
> 
> Nope............P@triot is full of crap.
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> The link is above junior. You can't read, you can't click, and you can't Google. No wonder you need government to take care of you.
Click to expand...


So, you don't have anything to prove your claims that green energy is too expensive and cannot work, other than what you've said. 

I've posted a Google search (like you suggested) that shows you can get a 6.3 KW panel that will sell energy back to the electric company.  BTW................know what happens when you sell energy back to the power company?  You get paid.  Know what that money can go for?  Paying off your solar panels early. 

And no....................I didn't have the government take care of me, I actually spent around 21 years of my life defending it in the U.S. Navy.  

What have you done?


----------



## P@triot

ABikerSailor said:


> And no....................I didn't have the government take care of me, I actually spent around 21 years of my life defending it in the U.S. Navy.
> 
> *What have you done*?



I've fiercely protected it from people like _you_ who piss on the U.S. Constitution and support candidates who strip us of rights and freedoms.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

ABikerSailor said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also works for the nation as well.  Look at how much energy France gets from green sources.
Click to expand...


Yeah, nuclear.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

ABikerSailor said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot is a confused individual.  I just did a Google search for "buy home solar panels", and I saw that you could get a 6.3 KW grid tied system for around 9,900 dollars (and being tied into the grid means that when you make more than you use, the power company has to pay YOU for the electricity).
> 
> That was at the high end.
> 
> At the low end was a solar panel that was 4 ft by 12 ft for 173.37.
> 
> Nope............P@triot is full of crap.
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> The link is above junior. You can't read, you can't click, and you can't Google. No wonder you need government to take care of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have anything to prove your claims that green energy is too expensive and cannot work, other than what you've said.
> 
> I've posted a Google search (like you suggested) that shows you can get a 6.3 KW panel that will sell energy back to the electric company.  BTW................know what happens when you sell energy back to the power company?  You get paid.  Know what that money can go for?  Paying off your solar panels early.
> 
> And no....................I didn't have the government take care of me,* I actually spent around 21 years of my life defending it in the U.S. Navy.  *
> 
> What have you done?
Click to expand...


You spent 21 years pushing paper.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot is a confused individual.  I just did a Google search for "buy home solar panels", and I saw that you could get a 6.3 KW grid tied system for around 9,900 dollars (and being tied into the grid means that when you make more than you use, the power company has to pay YOU for the electricity).
> 
> That was at the high end.
> 
> At the low end was a solar panel that was 4 ft by 12 ft for 173.37.
> 
> Nope............P@triot is full of crap.
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> The link is above junior. You can't read, you can't click, and you can't Google. No wonder you need government to take care of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have anything to prove your claims that green energy is too expensive and cannot work, other than what you've said.
> 
> I've posted a Google search (like you suggested) that shows you can get a 6.3 KW panel that will sell energy back to the electric company.  BTW................know what happens when you sell energy back to the power company?  You get paid.  Know what that money can go for?  Paying off your solar panels early.
> 
> And no....................I didn't have the government take care of me,* I actually spent around 21 years of my life defending it in the U.S. Navy.  *
> 
> What have you done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spent 21 years pushing paper.
Click to expand...


Yep, and because I was so good at it, my last 2 tours were independent duty, done back to back.  One was as an independent admin on an MSC vessel, the second one was running a MEPS as Head Classifier and LPO. 

But, not all of it was easy, because there were 4 war zones involved.  Beruit, Desert Storm pts 1 and 2, and Kosovo.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

ABikerSailor said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot is a confused individual.  I just did a Google search for "buy home solar panels", and I saw that you could get a 6.3 KW grid tied system for around 9,900 dollars (and being tied into the grid means that when you make more than you use, the power company has to pay YOU for the electricity).
> 
> That was at the high end.
> 
> At the low end was a solar panel that was 4 ft by 12 ft for 173.37.
> 
> Nope............P@triot is full of crap.
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> The link is above junior. You can't read, you can't click, and you can't Google. No wonder you need government to take care of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have anything to prove your claims that green energy is too expensive and cannot work, other than what you've said.
> 
> I've posted a Google search (like you suggested) that shows you can get a 6.3 KW panel that will sell energy back to the electric company.  BTW................know what happens when you sell energy back to the power company?  You get paid.  Know what that money can go for?  Paying off your solar panels early.
> 
> And no....................I didn't have the government take care of me,* I actually spent around 21 years of my life defending it in the U.S. Navy.  *
> 
> What have you done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spent 21 years pushing paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and because I was so good at it, my last 2 tours were independent duty, done back to back.  One was as an independent admin on an MSC vessel, the second one was running a MEPS as Head Classifier and LPO.
> 
> But, not all of it was easy, because there were 4 war zones involved.  Beruit, Desert Storm pts 1 and 2, and Kosovo.
Click to expand...


I don't think you want to compare service records. You would lose.


----------



## P@triot

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot is a confused individual.  I just did a Google search for "buy home solar panels", and I saw that you could get a 6.3 KW grid tied system for around 9,900 dollars (and being tied into the grid means that when you make more than you use, the power company has to pay YOU for the electricity).
> 
> That was at the high end.
> 
> At the low end was a solar panel that was 4 ft by 12 ft for 173.37.
> 
> Nope............P@triot is full of crap.
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> The link is above junior. You can't read, you can't click, and you can't Google. No wonder you need government to take care of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have anything to prove your claims that green energy is too expensive and cannot work, other than what you've said.
> 
> I've posted a Google search (like you suggested) that shows you can get a 6.3 KW panel that will sell energy back to the electric company.  BTW................know what happens when you sell energy back to the power company?  You get paid.  Know what that money can go for?  Paying off your solar panels early.
> 
> And no....................I didn't have the government take care of me,* I actually spent around 21 years of my life defending it in the U.S. Navy.  *
> 
> What have you done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spent 21 years pushing paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and because I was so good at it, my last 2 tours were independent duty, done back to back.  One was as an independent admin on an MSC vessel, the second one was running a MEPS as Head Classifier and LPO.
> 
> But, not all of it was easy, because there were 4 war zones involved.  Beruit, Desert Storm pts 1 and 2, and Kosovo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you want to compare service records. You would lose.
Click to expand...


A sincere thank you for your service ART...


----------



## ABikerSailor

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot is a confused individual.  I just did a Google search for "buy home solar panels", and I saw that you could get a 6.3 KW grid tied system for around 9,900 dollars (and being tied into the grid means that when you make more than you use, the power company has to pay YOU for the electricity).
> 
> That was at the high end.
> 
> At the low end was a solar panel that was 4 ft by 12 ft for 173.37.
> 
> Nope............P@triot is full of crap.
> 
> Google
> 
> 
> 
> The link is above junior. You can't read, you can't click, and you can't Google. No wonder you need government to take care of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have anything to prove your claims that green energy is too expensive and cannot work, other than what you've said.
> 
> I've posted a Google search (like you suggested) that shows you can get a 6.3 KW panel that will sell energy back to the electric company.  BTW................know what happens when you sell energy back to the power company?  You get paid.  Know what that money can go for?  Paying off your solar panels early.
> 
> And no....................I didn't have the government take care of me,* I actually spent around 21 years of my life defending it in the U.S. Navy.  *
> 
> What have you done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You spent 21 years pushing paper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and because I was so good at it, my last 2 tours were independent duty, done back to back.  One was as an independent admin on an MSC vessel, the second one was running a MEPS as Head Classifier and LPO.
> 
> But, not all of it was easy, because there were 4 war zones involved.  Beruit, Desert Storm pts 1 and 2, and Kosovo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you want to compare service records. You would lose.
Click to expand...


Not trying to compare service records, just letting you know that even though I was a "titless WAVE", I'm still proud of what I did and how I did it.

Wasn't your typical PN though, because NAVY stands for Never Again Volunteer Yourself, and because I was a poor dumb country boy from Montana who had never seen anything like the ships and planes I was stationed around, I volunteered for anything that would get me close to stuff like that.   Might be the reason that I was selected for Independent Duty for my last 2 tours.


----------



## P@triot

This entire "green energy" stuff is such a joke. There isn't anything "green" about it and all it does is drive up costs to _insane_ levels...

Consumers Pay as Regulators Allow Natural Gas at Solar Plant


----------



## mamooth

P@triot said:


> This entire "green energy" stuff is such a joke. There isn't anything "green" about it and all it does is drive up costs to _insane_ levels...



It must really bother you, the free market success of renewable energy. You'll either have to renounce capitalism, or admit your political cult's hatred of renewable energy was really dumb.

Meanwhile, we here in the rational camp get to celebrate both capitialism and the economic success of renewable energy.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire "green energy" stuff is such a joke. There isn't anything "green" about it and all it does is drive up costs to _insane_ levels...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must really bother you, the free market success of renewable energy. You'll either have to renounce capitalism, or admit your political cult's hatred of renewable energy was really dumb.
> 
> Meanwhile, we here in the rational camp get to celebrate both capitialism and the economic success of renewable energy.
Click to expand...






What "free market success"?  "Green" energy companies would not exist were it not for taxpayer subsidies and onerous laws against fossil fuels.  

You're full of poo....


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire "green energy" stuff is such a joke. There isn't anything "green" about it and all it does is drive up costs to _insane_ levels...
> 
> 
> 
> It must really bother you, the free market success of renewable energy. You'll either have to renounce capitalism, or admit your political cult's hatred of renewable energy was really dumb.
> 
> Meanwhile, we here in the rational camp get to celebrate both capitialism and the economic success of renewable energy.
Click to expand...

You know what clearly bothers _you_? The *truth*. Renewable energy has been a catastrophic failure - even with *trillions* of dollars in government subsidies since the Carter Administration. Hell - Solyndra went bankrupt and out of business despite half a *billion* dollars from Obama. Do you have any idea how pitiful your product has to be to fail so miserably that you can't keep a business afloat with someone handing you half a *billion* dollars for free?!?

Seriously mamooth - how _dumb_ do you look right now? Do you even think before posting or is advancing the ideology so important to you that you're willing to throw yourself on the grenade for it and destroy your own credibility as a decent and rational person? I'm curious to know which one it actually is.


----------



## Mindful

If it could be like this.

100% Self-Reliant Town in the Netherlands Will Live Off-Grid, Producing All of Its Own Energy and Food


----------



## mamooth

P@triot said:


> You know what clearly bothers _you_?



You're like a buggy-whip maker ranting how those horseless carriages are clearly a failure, even as thousands of them drive by. As proof, you point to a single car manufacturer that went bankrupt. The sheer scale of your detachment from reality actually inspires pity.

You rave about Solyndra, while ignoring the vastly more numerous success stories. I've got a massive thriving renewable power industry backing me up. You've got a few cherrypicks, and your carefully constructed anti-reality bubble.

You no longer even rise to the level of comic relief. All you have left is your precious conspiracy theories. The world has moved on down he road without you, after spinning gravel in your face, and you're not even visible in the rear-view mirror. So sit back and enjoy the irrelevance that you've so richly earned.


----------



## Mudda

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire "green energy" stuff is such a joke. There isn't anything "green" about it and all it does is drive up costs to _insane_ levels...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must really bother you, the free market success of renewable energy. You'll either have to renounce capitalism, or admit your political cult's hatred of renewable energy was really dumb.
> 
> Meanwhile, we here in the rational camp get to celebrate both capitialism and the economic success of renewable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "free market success"?  "Green" energy companies would not exist were it not for taxpayer subsidies and onerous laws against fossil fuels.
> 
> You're full of poo....
Click to expand...

The oil and gas sector gets subsidies from governments as well. Or were you clueless to that fact?


----------



## westwall

Mudda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire "green energy" stuff is such a joke. There isn't anything "green" about it and all it does is drive up costs to _insane_ levels...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must really bother you, the free market success of renewable energy. You'll either have to renounce capitalism, or admit your political cult's hatred of renewable energy was really dumb.
> 
> Meanwhile, we here in the rational camp get to celebrate both capitialism and the economic success of renewable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "free market success"?  "Green" energy companies would not exist were it not for taxpayer subsidies and onerous laws against fossil fuels.
> 
> You're full of poo....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The oil and gas sector gets subsidies from governments as well. Or were you clueless to that fact?
Click to expand...






No, they don't.  They get tax breaks like any other manufacturer.  Not subsidies.  But, let us take ALL of those away too.  Let us pass a law that says they don't get to depreciate equipment or any other legitimate tax avoidance loophole that exists in the tax code.  They get nothing, but so too do the "green" companies.  They too get nothing.  

In one half of a year EVERY green energy company would be out of business.  Every.  Single.  One.  The oil companies on the other hand, will be cruising right along providing the world with energy and the only result of them losing their tax breaks will be we pay a tad more for our energy.  Maybe not though, the government charges ALL of us a fee on top of our energy bills to support those so called "green" energy companies.  With that fee gone our energy costs might actually drop.  I haven't run the numbers.


----------



## bripat9643

Mudda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire "green energy" stuff is such a joke. There isn't anything "green" about it and all it does is drive up costs to _insane_ levels...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must really bother you, the free market success of renewable energy. You'll either have to renounce capitalism, or admit your political cult's hatred of renewable energy was really dumb.
> 
> Meanwhile, we here in the rational camp get to celebrate both capitialism and the economic success of renewable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "free market success"?  "Green" energy companies would not exist were it not for taxpayer subsidies and onerous laws against fossil fuels.
> 
> You're full of poo....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The oil and gas sector gets subsidies from governments as well. Or were you clueless to that fact?
Click to expand...


What utter horseshit.  I've seen that claim posted dozens of times by forum morons like you, and I've cut it to ribbons every single time.


----------



## bripat9643

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what clearly bothers _you_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're like a buggy-whip maker ranting how those horseless carriages are clearly a failure, even as thousands of them drive by. As proof, you point to a single car manufacturer that went bankrupt. The sheer scale of your detachment from reality actually inspires pity.
> 
> You rave about Solyndra, while ignoring the vastly more numerous success stories. I've got a massive thriving renewable power industry backing me up. You've got a few cherrypicks, and your carefully constructed anti-reality bubble.
> 
> You no longer even rise to the level of comic relief. All you have left is your precious conspiracy theories. The world has moved on down he road without you, after spinning gravel in your face, and you're not even visible in the rear-view mirror. So sit back and enjoy the irrelevance that you've so richly earned.
Click to expand...


When did the auto manufacturers get government subsidies?  Your "massive thriving renewable power industry" would disappear in a month without massive government subsidies.  

That's the problem with your absurd analogies.  They always crash against the hard rocks of historical reality.   The "infant industries" argument has been shot down by economists a million times, but there are always douche bags like you who believe no one is wise to your cons.


----------



## bripat9643

Mindful said:


> If it could be like this.
> 
> 100% Self-Reliant Town in the Netherlands Will Live Off-Grid, Producing All of Its Own Energy and Food



You'll never hear another word about this project when it goes down in flames.


----------



## P@triot

Mindful said:


> If it could be like this.
> 
> 100% Self-Reliant Town in the Netherlands Will Live Off-Grid, Producing All of Its Own Energy and Food


"We're really looking at starting off as the Tesla of Eco Villages". *I'm 100% for this if it is done like Tesla*. Which means the government doesn't illegally steal my tax dollars and throw it at the project. Instead, it's funded by private investors in the private sector.

The truth is - if the green energy fallacy was worth a _damn_ - it wouldn't need government funding. Did the government have to fund the iPhone? The iPad? Google? Facebook? Only failed concepts need government funding. Great products take off and make a ton of money on their own (and have no problem getting private funding).


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it could be like this.
> 
> 100% Self-Reliant Town in the Netherlands Will Live Off-Grid, Producing All of Its Own Energy and Food
> 
> 
> 
> "We're really looking at starting off as the Tesla of Eco Villages". *I'm 100% for this if it is done like Tesla*. Which means the government doesn't illegally steal my tax dollars and throw it at the project. Instead, it's funded by private investors in the private sector.
> 
> The truth is - if the green energy fallacy was worth a _damn_ - it wouldn't need government funding. Did the government have to fund the iPhone? The iPad? Google? Facebook? Only failed concepts need government funding. Great products take off and make a ton of money on their own (and have no problem getting private funding).
Click to expand...


Tesla's cars get all kinds of government subsidies, especially in California.  He's the ultimate crony capitalist.


----------



## mamooth

Like I keep saying, we've got the real world and real numbers, while you've all only got conspiracy theories.

Aug 14, 2016
*Renewables jump 70 per cent in five years*
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67b20418-60cc-11e6-ae3f-77baadeb1c93.html

Summary: The 20 largest national economies generated 8.0 percent of their electricity from green sources in 2015, up from 4.6 percent in 2010. Those figures don't include hydro or nuclear.

So, still a long way to go, but far better than any forecasters predicted, due to the plunging prices of wind and solar.


----------



## bripat9643

mamooth said:


> Like I keep saying, we've got the real world and real numbers, while you've all only got conspiracy theories.
> 
> Aug 14, 2016
> *Renewables jump 70 per cent in five years*
> Renewables jump 70 per cent in shift away from fossil fuels - FT.com
> 
> Summary: The 20 largest national economies generated 8.0 percent of their electricity from green sources in 2015, up from 4.6 percent in 2010. Those figures don't include hydro or nuclear.
> 
> So, still a long way to go, but far better than any forecasters predicted, due to the plunging prices of wind and solar.



Let reality sink in:






Energy is 4 times more expensive in Germany.


----------



## P@triot

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I keep saying, we've got the real world and real numbers, while you've all only got conspiracy theories.
> 
> Aug 14, 2016
> *Renewables jump 70 per cent in five years*
> Renewables jump 70 per cent in shift away from fossil fuels - FT.com
> 
> Summary: The 20 largest national economies generated 8.0 percent of their electricity from green sources in 2015, up from 4.6 percent in 2010. Those figures don't include hydro or nuclear.
> 
> So, still a long way to go, but far better than any forecasters predicted, due to the plunging prices of wind and solar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let reality sink in:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Energy is 4 times more expensive in Germany.
Click to expand...

I told you already - Mamooth eschews reality in favor of absurd ideology.


----------



## bripat9643

P@triot said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I keep saying, we've got the real world and real numbers, while you've all only got conspiracy theories.
> 
> Aug 14, 2016
> *Renewables jump 70 per cent in five years*
> Renewables jump 70 per cent in shift away from fossil fuels - FT.com
> 
> Summary: The 20 largest national economies generated 8.0 percent of their electricity from green sources in 2015, up from 4.6 percent in 2010. Those figures don't include hydro or nuclear.
> 
> So, still a long way to go, but far better than any forecasters predicted, due to the plunging prices of wind and solar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let reality sink in:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Energy is 4 times more expensive in Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you already - Mamooth eschews reality in favor of absurd ideology.
Click to expand...


Notice no response from him/her.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what clearly bothers _you_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You rave about Solyndra, while ignoring the vastly more numerous success stories. I've got a massive thriving renewable power industry backing me up. You've got a few cherrypicks, and your carefully constructed anti-reality bubble.
> 
> You no longer even rise to the level of comic relief. All you have left is your precious conspiracy theories. The world has moved on down he road without you, after spinning gravel in your face, and you're not even visible in the rear-view mirror. So sit back and enjoy the irrelevance that you've so richly earned.
Click to expand...

Like I said - the *truth* clearly bothers you. If "green" energy were even remotely viable it would have been impossible for Solyndra to go out of business with a free half a *billion* dollars. And government wouldn't have needed to throw *trillions* of dollars at the industry since the Carter Administration. I've given specifics. You've provided _nothing_ but unhinged ideology at the expense of reality.

Watching you have a complete and total meltdown in the face of facts is kind of _chilling_. You're unhinged, bat-shit crazy really resonates right through the computer screen. Is there anyone you can turn to for help? I'm really worried about you. You're not in a healthy state at all. The lines between fantasy and reality have become extremely blurred for you. Please reach out for the mental healthcare that you need. Talk to _someone_.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> I've got a massive *thriving* renewable power industry backing me up.


If it was so "thriving" government *wouldn't* need to spend trillions of dollars over 40 years for a technology which they _still_ haven't been able to bring to fruition.

A customer needs to spend over $10,000 to get the energy equivalent of a fucking AAA battery. It's the kind of failure and insanity that could _only_ come from liberalism.


----------



## mamooth

While you all tell us what you "feel" must be true, solar and wind keep dropping in price, getting cheaper than coal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

The truth about solar: now cheaper than coal

Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Coal In India, Says Energy Minister

Renewable energy installations will continue to grow, and continue to make money, despite you wailing that you "feel" it can't be possible.

Tell you what, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Start shorting the right stocks, investing in others. Let us know how it goes. Maybe invest in some coal stocks. If you had done that previously ... you would have lost everything, as all the major coal companies in the USA went bankrupt. Oops. Maybe that's why you're so cranky.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mamooth said:


> While you all tell us what you "feel" must be true, solar and wind keep dropping in price, getting cheaper than coal.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> The truth about solar: now cheaper than coal
> 
> Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Coal In India, Says Energy Minister
> 
> Renewable energy installations will continue to grow, and continue to make money, despite you wailing that you "feel" it can't be possible.
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Start shorting the right stocks, investing in others. Let us know how it goes. Maybe invest in some coal stocks. If you had done that previously ... you would have lost everything, as all the major coal companies in the USA went bankrupt. Oops. Maybe that's why you're so cranky.



*solar and wind keep dropping in price, getting cheaper than coal.*

Utilities won't pay as much for unreliable wind and solar?
That's certainly shocking!!!

Those cheaper prices must also explain why rates are so much higher in Germany than in the US, right?


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> Tell you what, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Start shorting the right stocks, investing in others. Let us know how it goes. Maybe invest in some coal stocks. If you had done that previously ... you would have lost everything, as all the major coal companies in the USA went bankrupt. Oops. Maybe that's why you're so cranky.


That's just it _dumb-ass_....idiot libtards like you support idiot libtards like Hitlery Clinton who are attempting to illegally leverage government to put viable energy sources out of business.

Take away the government regulations and the government subsidies and there would not be a single "green energy" company in business today. Not _one_. Your comment here clearly illustrates that you haven't grasped the entire point of this thread. No wonder you're so angry. You don't even know what the discussion is about.

Eliminate all government interference (including laws and financing) for energy and *then* lets put our money where our mouths are. I guarantee you'll be dead broke in less than six months and I'll retire a _billionaire_. It's just a fact, dumb-ass.


----------



## mamooth

P@triot said:


> Take away the government regulations and the government subsidies and there would not be a single "green energy" company in business today. Not _one_.



You keep saying that. Apparently, it's like a religious mantra to you and all of the anti-green-energy cultists.

Sadly, you haven't provided any evidence to support that crazy claim. You all seem to think that repeating it will magically make it true, and that if you scream loudly enough, nobody will be allowed to point out you're just making it up.

We here in the reason-based community do things differently. We want evidence.

So, kindly show us your evidence that every green energy company in the world would go out of business without government subsidies. Be sure to show all your work. If you're not just running on "feelings", that should be no problem.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take away the government regulations and the government subsidies and there would not be a single "green energy" company in business today. Not _one_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that. Apparently, it's like a religious mantra to you and all of the anti-green-energy cultists.
> 
> Sadly, you haven't provided any evidence to support that crazy claim. You all seem to think that repeating it will magically make it true, and that if you scream loudly enough, nobody will be allowed to point out you're just making it up.
> 
> We here in the reason-based community do things differently. We want evidence.
> 
> So, kindly show us your evidence that every green energy company in the world would go out of business without government subsidies. Be sure to show all your work. If you're not just running on "feelings", that should be no problem.
Click to expand...

Um.....because if they could survive without subsidies, they wouldn't be receiving subsidies _stupid_. This is like saying "the dead body is no evidence of death - please show me some death". It's kind of self-evident in both cases. The existence of subsidies is its own proof. 

*Making mamooth my _personal_ bitch since August 17, 2012


----------



## bripat9643

mamooth said:


> While you all tell us what you "feel" must be true, solar and wind keep dropping in price, getting cheaper than coal.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> The truth about solar: now cheaper than coal
> 
> Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Coal In India, Says Energy Minister
> 
> Renewable energy installations will continue to grow, and continue to make money, despite you wailing that you "feel" it can't be possible.
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Start shorting the right stocks, investing in others. Let us know how it goes. Maybe invest in some coal stocks. If you had done that previously ... you would have lost everything, as all the major coal companies in the USA went bankrupt. Oops. Maybe that's why you're so cranky.



The more renewable energy grows, the more it will cost American consumers.  All green energy does is screw the poor who can't afford it.


----------



## Mudda

bripat9643 said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire "green energy" stuff is such a joke. There isn't anything "green" about it and all it does is drive up costs to _insane_ levels...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must really bother you, the free market success of renewable energy. You'll either have to renounce capitalism, or admit your political cult's hatred of renewable energy was really dumb.
> 
> Meanwhile, we here in the rational camp get to celebrate both capitialism and the economic success of renewable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "free market success"?  "Green" energy companies would not exist were it not for taxpayer subsidies and onerous laws against fossil fuels.
> 
> You're full of poo....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The oil and gas sector gets subsidies from governments as well. Or were you clueless to that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What utter horseshit.  I've seen that claim posted dozens of times by forum morons like you, and I've cut it to ribbons every single time.
Click to expand...

That must be why there's nothing in your post.


----------



## Mudda

bripat9643 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you all tell us what you "feel" must be true, solar and wind keep dropping in price, getting cheaper than coal.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> The truth about solar: now cheaper than coal
> 
> Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Coal In India, Says Energy Minister
> 
> Renewable energy installations will continue to grow, and continue to make money, despite you wailing that you "feel" it can't be possible.
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Start shorting the right stocks, investing in others. Let us know how it goes. Maybe invest in some coal stocks. If you had done that previously ... you would have lost everything, as all the major coal companies in the USA went bankrupt. Oops. Maybe that's why you're so cranky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more renewable energy grows, the more it will cost American consumers.  All green energy does is screw the poor who can't afford it.
Click to expand...

Hydro electricity is green, renewable and cheap. Now you know.


----------



## Mudda

westwall said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire "green energy" stuff is such a joke. There isn't anything "green" about it and all it does is drive up costs to _insane_ levels...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must really bother you, the free market success of renewable energy. You'll either have to renounce capitalism, or admit your political cult's hatred of renewable energy was really dumb.
> 
> Meanwhile, we here in the rational camp get to celebrate both capitialism and the economic success of renewable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "free market success"?  "Green" energy companies would not exist were it not for taxpayer subsidies and onerous laws against fossil fuels.
> 
> You're full of poo....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The oil and gas sector gets subsidies from governments as well. Or were you clueless to that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  They get tax breaks like any other manufacturer.  Not subsidies.  But, let us take ALL of those away too.  Let us pass a law that says they don't get to depreciate equipment or any other legitimate tax avoidance loophole that exists in the tax code.  They get nothing, but so too do the "green" companies.  They too get nothing.
> 
> In one half of a year EVERY green energy company would be out of business.  Every.  Single.  One.  The oil companies on the other hand, will be cruising right along providing the world with energy and the only result of them losing their tax breaks will be we pay a tad more for our energy.  Maybe not though, the government charges ALL of us a fee on top of our energy bills to support those so called "green" energy companies.  With that fee gone our energy costs might actually drop.  I haven't run the numbers.
Click to expand...

Hydro electric power generating is green and those companies arent going out of business any time soon.


----------



## Mudda

P@triot said:


> Take away the government regulations and the government subsidies and there would not be a single "green energy" company in business today. Not _one_.


hydro electric companies, now you know.


----------



## P@triot

Mudda said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take away the government regulations and the government subsidies and there would not be a single "green energy" company in business today. Not _one_.
> 
> 
> 
> hydro electric companies, now you know.
Click to expand...

That's a good example of one of the "green" technologies that would be out of business without government regulations and government subsidies mandating it into existence. Thank you for that great example.


----------



## Mudda

P@triot said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take away the government regulations and the government subsidies and there would not be a single "green energy" company in business today. Not _one_.
> 
> 
> 
> hydro electric companies, now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good example of one of the "green" technologies that would be out of business without government regulations and government subsidies mandating it into existence. Thank you for that great example.
Click to expand...

Too bad you have no clue. Carry on with your delusions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mudda said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you all tell us what you "feel" must be true, solar and wind keep dropping in price, getting cheaper than coal.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> The truth about solar: now cheaper than coal
> 
> Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Coal In India, Says Energy Minister
> 
> Renewable energy installations will continue to grow, and continue to make money, despite you wailing that you "feel" it can't be possible.
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Start shorting the right stocks, investing in others. Let us know how it goes. Maybe invest in some coal stocks. If you had done that previously ... you would have lost everything, as all the major coal companies in the USA went bankrupt. Oops. Maybe that's why you're so cranky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more renewable energy grows, the more it will cost American consumers.  All green energy does is screw the poor who can't afford it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hydro electricity is green, renewable and cheap. Now you know.
Click to expand...


How many new dams do American libs want us to build?


----------



## bripat9643

Mudda said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you all tell us what you "feel" must be true, solar and wind keep dropping in price, getting cheaper than coal.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> The truth about solar: now cheaper than coal
> 
> Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Coal In India, Says Energy Minister
> 
> Renewable energy installations will continue to grow, and continue to make money, despite you wailing that you "feel" it can't be possible.
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Start shorting the right stocks, investing in others. Let us know how it goes. Maybe invest in some coal stocks. If you had done that previously ... you would have lost everything, as all the major coal companies in the USA went bankrupt. Oops. Maybe that's why you're so cranky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more renewable energy grows, the more it will cost American consumers.  All green energy does is screw the poor who can't afford it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hydro electricity is green, renewable and cheap. Now you know.
Click to expand...


If it's so green, then why are environmental wackos always trying to shut it down?


----------



## bripat9643

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you all tell us what you "feel" must be true, solar and wind keep dropping in price, getting cheaper than coal.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> The truth about solar: now cheaper than coal
> 
> Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Coal In India, Says Energy Minister
> 
> Renewable energy installations will continue to grow, and continue to make money, despite you wailing that you "feel" it can't be possible.
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Start shorting the right stocks, investing in others. Let us know how it goes. Maybe invest in some coal stocks. If you had done that previously ... you would have lost everything, as all the major coal companies in the USA went bankrupt. Oops. Maybe that's why you're so cranky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more renewable energy grows, the more it will cost American consumers.  All green energy does is screw the poor who can't afford it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hydro electricity is green, renewable and cheap. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many new dams do American libs want us to build?
Click to expand...


None, is the correct answer.


----------



## westwall

Mudda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This entire "green energy" stuff is such a joke. There isn't anything "green" about it and all it does is drive up costs to _insane_ levels...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must really bother you, the free market success of renewable energy. You'll either have to renounce capitalism, or admit your political cult's hatred of renewable energy was really dumb.
> 
> Meanwhile, we here in the rational camp get to celebrate both capitialism and the economic success of renewable energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "free market success"?  "Green" energy companies would not exist were it not for taxpayer subsidies and onerous laws against fossil fuels.
> 
> You're full of poo....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The oil and gas sector gets subsidies from governments as well. Or were you clueless to that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  They get tax breaks like any other manufacturer.  Not subsidies.  But, let us take ALL of those away too.  Let us pass a law that says they don't get to depreciate equipment or any other legitimate tax avoidance loophole that exists in the tax code.  They get nothing, but so too do the "green" companies.  They too get nothing.
> 
> In one half of a year EVERY green energy company would be out of business.  Every.  Single.  One.  The oil companies on the other hand, will be cruising right along providing the world with energy and the only result of them losing their tax breaks will be we pay a tad more for our energy.  Maybe not though, the government charges ALL of us a fee on top of our energy bills to support those so called "green" energy companies.  With that fee gone our energy costs might actually drop.  I haven't run the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hydro electric power generating is green and those companies arent going out of business any time soon.
Click to expand...







Yes, and they are government subsidized for their very creation.   They are a good source of power but the taxpayer is involved in every aspect of a dams creation.  I suggest you read the history of the TVA and the US Bureau of Reclamation is who built the Grand Coulee dam, the largest of its type in the US.  So, once again, the government and the American Taxpayer paid for them.


----------



## Old Rocks

Yessirree,  Damned ol' FDR and Hoover built all them thar dams on the taxpayers back, and they produced the electricity that smelted the aluminum that created the bomber fleet that won WW2. What bad men they were.


----------



## Old Rocks

You are right, they don't need to build more dams. Oregon and Washington are building thousands of windmills. A perfect complement to the dams. When the mills are producing, they don't have to run the turbines. And can save water for later use.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Yessirree,  Damned ol' FDR and Hoover built all them thar dams on the taxpayers back, and they produced the electricity that smelted the aluminum that created the bomber fleet that won WW2. What bad men they were.







Oh goody a simplistic response from the Board simpleton.  The claim was that they were not taxpayer subsidized.  I showed that to be false.  Face it clown boy without taxpayer support NO GREEN energy company can last more than 6 months.  The oil companies, on the other hand, can.  Take away their tax breaks (because that's what they are, they are NOT subsidies) and they are still doing business.  Your crap energy companies are shit outa luck.

That's the reality of "green" energy companies.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> Yessirree,  Damned ol' FDR and Hoover built all them thar dams on the taxpayers back, and they produced the electricity that smelted the aluminum that created the bomber fleet that won WW2. What bad men they were.


We had electricity before FDR, _stupid._ And, had he built that because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it wouldn't have been ready before the war ended (it took 5 years and one month to build the damn April 1931 to May 1936 while Pearl Harbor occurred December 1941 and V-Day was May 1945 - or 3 years and 5 months).

Any other desperate and stupid shit you want to spout Old Rocks?


----------



## Mudda

westwall said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must really bother you, the free market success of renewable energy. You'll either have to renounce capitalism, or admit your political cult's hatred of renewable energy was really dumb.
> 
> Meanwhile, we here in the rational camp get to celebrate both capitialism and the economic success of renewable energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "free market success"?  "Green" energy companies would not exist were it not for taxpayer subsidies and onerous laws against fossil fuels.
> 
> You're full of poo....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The oil and gas sector gets subsidies from governments as well. Or were you clueless to that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  They get tax breaks like any other manufacturer.  Not subsidies.  But, let us take ALL of those away too.  Let us pass a law that says they don't get to depreciate equipment or any other legitimate tax avoidance loophole that exists in the tax code.  They get nothing, but so too do the "green" companies.  They too get nothing.
> 
> In one half of a year EVERY green energy company would be out of business.  Every.  Single.  One.  The oil companies on the other hand, will be cruising right along providing the world with energy and the only result of them losing their tax breaks will be we pay a tad more for our energy.  Maybe not though, the government charges ALL of us a fee on top of our energy bills to support those so called "green" energy companies.  With that fee gone our energy costs might actually drop.  I haven't run the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hydro electric power generating is green and those companies arent going out of business any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and they are government subsidized for their very creation.   They are a good source of power but the taxpayer is involved in every aspect of a dams creation.  I suggest you read the history of the TVA and the US Bureau of Reclamation is who built the Grand Coulee dam, the largest of its type in the US.  So, once again, the government and the American Taxpayer paid for them.
Click to expand...

The government paid for and owns the Grand Coulee Dam and it's a massive money maker and water controller. You don't like the government making money?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> While you all tell us what you "feel" must be true, solar and wind keep dropping in price, getting cheaper than coal.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> The truth about solar: now cheaper than coal
> 
> Solar Power Now Cheaper Than Coal In India, Says Energy Minister
> 
> Renewable energy installations will continue to grow, and continue to make money, despite you wailing that you "feel" it can't be possible.
> 
> Tell you what, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Start shorting the right stocks, investing in others. Let us know how it goes. Maybe invest in some coal stocks. If you had done that previously ... you would have lost everything, as all the major coal companies in the USA went bankrupt. Oops. Maybe that's why you're so cranky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more renewable energy grows, the more it will cost American consumers.  All green energy does is screw the poor who can't afford it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hydro electricity is green, renewable and cheap. Now you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many new dams do American libs want us to build?
Click to expand...



He is retarded, the U.S. got out of the dam business eons ago.


----------



## mamooth

westwall said:


> Face it clown boy without taxpayer support NO GREEN energy company can last more than 6 months.



The deniers here keep chanting that reality-defying statement like a mantra, but they've never shown any hard data to back up that emotion-based fantasy.

Hard data would be some numbers. Show us the profits of every single green energy companies, show how much in subsidies they receive, show how they couldn't be profitable at all without the subsidies. And do it for every green energy company in the world, since your claim is that every green energy company in the world would fail.

Remember, we here in the progressive reality-based community run on facts, not feelings. Your emotion-based appeals will score points with fellow deniers, but not with rational people.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Face it clown boy without taxpayer support NO GREEN energy company can last more than 6 months.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deniers here keep chanting that reality-defying statement like a mantra, but they've never shown any hard data to back up that emotion-based fantasy.
> 
> Hard data would be some numbers. Show us the profits of every single green energy companies, show how much in subsidies they receive, show how they couldn't be profitable at all without the subsidies. And do it for every green energy company in the world, since your claim is that every green energy company in the world would fail.
> 
> Remember, we here in the progressive reality-based community run on facts, not feelings. Your emotion-based appeals will score points with fellow deniers, but not with rational people.
Click to expand...


*Show us the profits of every single green energy companies,*

Do you know of any profitable green energy company?


----------



## hauke

you obviousely have no clue what sustainability means.

i ll demonstrate.

iff  a scource of energy is infinite its sustainable.

fossile fuels are not sustainable, because the recource is limited.

solar energy is sustainable, because it will be available for the next 2 billion years.

wind energy is the result of solar energy so see above.

wave energy is the result of solar energy so see above.

tide energy is the result of the moon orbiting earth, tidal energy will be available for the next 2 billion years. sustainable

fossile fuels will be gone in about 500 years, turning earth atmosphere in something real evil, not sustainable


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> you obviousely have no clue what sustainability means.
> 
> i ll demonstrate.
> 
> iff  a scource of energy is infinite its sustainable.
> 
> fossile fuels are not sustainable, because the recource is limited.
> 
> solar energy is sustainable, because it will be available for the next 2 billion years.
> 
> wind energy is the result of solar energy so see above.
> 
> wave energy is the result of solar energy so see above.
> 
> tide energy is the result of the moon orbiting earth, tidal energy will be available for the next 2 billion years. sustainable
> 
> fossile fuels will be gone in about 500 years, turning earth atmosphere in something real evil, not sustainable




Seriously dude, you said you went to college?

What was it Ronald McDonald's university?

*tide energy is the result of the moon orbiting earth, tidal energy will be available for the next 2 billion years. sustainable
*
Tidal energy will run out in only a few million years


Will the Moon ever leave Earth’s orbit? | Space Facts – Astronomy, the Solar System & Outer Space | All About Space Magazine


----------



## hauke

tidal energy will run out in a few million years ...

are you aware that tides are made by the gravitational energy of the moon ?

are you aware that the moon will stil be there in a billion years ?

so how do you explaint that tidal energy will be gone in a few million years ?

and you say i go to ronald mcdonald university ...

appearently you diddn t even finish middleschool


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> tidal energy will run out in a few million years ...
> 
> are you aware that tides are made by the gravitational energy of the moon ?
> 
> are you aware that the moon will stil be there in a billion years ?
> 
> so how do you explaint that tidal energy will be gone in a few million years ?
> 
> and you say i go to ronald mcdonald university ...
> 
> appearently you diddn t even finish middleschool




Hey Mr. Ronald McDonald did you bother to read the link?

The moon is moving away from earth at one point in a few million years , one side of earth will always face the moon..


Hence no tidal waves ...

Retard


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> and so sweet if someone belives total nutshell moron magazines
> 
> please use real scientific magazines as quotes,not nutcases
> 
> all about space is your science ? your a nutcase




Its been common knowledge Mr Assclown.....



When Apollo 11 astronauts landed on the moon in 1969, they left a reflector array there in the Sea of Tranquility. That array is part of the space agency's Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. Scientists on Earth can bounce laser pulses off that reflector and learn a lot about the moon. For instance, they can calculate the moon's distance within 3 centimeters (1.18 inches). Data from the experiment shows that the moon moves away from the Earth at about 3.82 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.

*Why the Moon Is Leaving*
The Earth and the moon influence each other's actions as seen in tides that occur because of the moon. For instance, when the moon is overhead, its gravity tugs on water below, creating tides that are higher than normal. Energy exchange and momentum resulting from tidal interactions affects both bodies in two ways: The Earth's rotational speed slows down, and the moon gets farther away.

*Effects of a Distant Moon*
Because the moon is moving away from Earth so slowly, it will take millions of years for anyone to notice the recession. In the distant future, total eclipses will not exist because as the moon's apparent size in the sky diminishes, it will not be able to completely cover the sun during a total eclipse. In addition, tides won't be as strong because the moon will be farther away and its gravitational pull will be weaker.


----------



## westwall

Mudda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "free market success"?  "Green" energy companies would not exist were it not for taxpayer subsidies and onerous laws against fossil fuels.
> 
> You're full of poo....
> 
> 
> 
> The oil and gas sector gets subsidies from governments as well. Or were you clueless to that fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  They get tax breaks like any other manufacturer.  Not subsidies.  But, let us take ALL of those away too.  Let us pass a law that says they don't get to depreciate equipment or any other legitimate tax avoidance loophole that exists in the tax code.  They get nothing, but so too do the "green" companies.  They too get nothing.
> 
> In one half of a year EVERY green energy company would be out of business.  Every.  Single.  One.  The oil companies on the other hand, will be cruising right along providing the world with energy and the only result of them losing their tax breaks will be we pay a tad more for our energy.  Maybe not though, the government charges ALL of us a fee on top of our energy bills to support those so called "green" energy companies.  With that fee gone our energy costs might actually drop.  I haven't run the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hydro electric power generating is green and those companies arent going out of business any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and they are government subsidized for their very creation.   They are a good source of power but the taxpayer is involved in every aspect of a dams creation.  I suggest you read the history of the TVA and the US Bureau of Reclamation is who built the Grand Coulee dam, the largest of its type in the US.  So, once again, the government and the American Taxpayer paid for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government paid for and owns the Grand Coulee Dam and it's a massive money maker and water controller. You don't like the government making money?
Click to expand...







Who is the government?  Oh right.  It's us the taxpayers.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Face it clown boy without taxpayer support NO GREEN energy company can last more than 6 months.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The deniers here keep chanting that reality-defying statement like a mantra, but they've never shown any hard data to back up that emotion-based fantasy.
> 
> Hard data would be some numbers. Show us the profits of every single green energy companies, show how much in subsidies they receive, show how they couldn't be profitable at all without the subsidies. And do it for every green energy company in the world, since your claim is that every green energy company in the world would fail.
> 
> Remember, we here in the progressive reality-based community run on facts, not feelings. Your emotion-based appeals will score points with fellow deniers, but not with rational people.
Click to expand...







It's not a "mantra" when it is a fact clown boy.  Show us a single "green" energy company that operates in the black without massive taxpayer help.  C'mon little kitty, show us.


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> you obviousely have no clue what sustainability means.
> 
> i ll demonstrate.
> 
> iff  a scource of energy is infinite its sustainable.
> 
> fossile fuels are not sustainable, because the recource is limited.
> 
> solar energy is sustainable, because it will be available for the next 2 billion years.
> 
> wind energy is the result of solar energy so see above.
> 
> wave energy is the result of solar energy so see above.
> 
> tide energy is the result of the moon orbiting earth, tidal energy will be available for the next 2 billion years. sustainable
> 
> fossile fuels will be gone in about 500 years, turning earth atmosphere in something real evil, not sustainable









All you are demonstrating is your complete ignorance of the subject matter.  How much fossil fuel usage is there to produce a single windmill?  Here's a hint, more than there is to produce a big engine.  Solar power is indeed sustainable, it is also totally inefficient.  Want power when it's cloudy?  Too bad, you can't have any.  Want it when it's dark?  Same story.  How about if your modules get a little dirty?  Oooops,  they drop from their max rated efficiency of around 20% to below 11%.  

Guess how long it would take to charge up your TESLA using solar power.  Go ahead...we'll wait till you figure it out.


----------



## Mudda

westwall said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The oil and gas sector gets subsidies from governments as well. Or were you clueless to that fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  They get tax breaks like any other manufacturer.  Not subsidies.  But, let us take ALL of those away too.  Let us pass a law that says they don't get to depreciate equipment or any other legitimate tax avoidance loophole that exists in the tax code.  They get nothing, but so too do the "green" companies.  They too get nothing.
> 
> In one half of a year EVERY green energy company would be out of business.  Every.  Single.  One.  The oil companies on the other hand, will be cruising right along providing the world with energy and the only result of them losing their tax breaks will be we pay a tad more for our energy.  Maybe not though, the government charges ALL of us a fee on top of our energy bills to support those so called "green" energy companies.  With that fee gone our energy costs might actually drop.  I haven't run the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hydro electric power generating is green and those companies arent going out of business any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and they are government subsidized for their very creation.   They are a good source of power but the taxpayer is involved in every aspect of a dams creation.  I suggest you read the history of the TVA and the US Bureau of Reclamation is who built the Grand Coulee dam, the largest of its type in the US.  So, once again, the government and the American Taxpayer paid for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government paid for and owns the Grand Coulee Dam and it's a massive money maker and water controller. You don't like the government making money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the government?  Oh right.  It's us the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

So you don't think we should make some money and build our country at the same time?


----------



## westwall

Mudda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  They get tax breaks like any other manufacturer.  Not subsidies.  But, let us take ALL of those away too.  Let us pass a law that says they don't get to depreciate equipment or any other legitimate tax avoidance loophole that exists in the tax code.  They get nothing, but so too do the "green" companies.  They too get nothing.
> 
> In one half of a year EVERY green energy company would be out of business.  Every.  Single.  One.  The oil companies on the other hand, will be cruising right along providing the world with energy and the only result of them losing their tax breaks will be we pay a tad more for our energy.  Maybe not though, the government charges ALL of us a fee on top of our energy bills to support those so called "green" energy companies.  With that fee gone our energy costs might actually drop.  I haven't run the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> Hydro electric power generating is green and those companies arent going out of business any time soon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and they are government subsidized for their very creation.   They are a good source of power but the taxpayer is involved in every aspect of a dams creation.  I suggest you read the history of the TVA and the US Bureau of Reclamation is who built the Grand Coulee dam, the largest of its type in the US.  So, once again, the government and the American Taxpayer paid for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government paid for and owns the Grand Coulee Dam and it's a massive money maker and water controller. You don't like the government making money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the government?  Oh right.  It's us the taxpayers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think we should make some money and build our country at the same time?
Click to expand...






Where have I ever said that?  Why is it that when you are shown to be wrong you resort to twisting the words of what people say if not outright fabricating them?  Why is that?


----------



## Mudda

westwall said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hydro electric power generating is green and those companies arent going out of business any time soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and they are government subsidized for their very creation.   They are a good source of power but the taxpayer is involved in every aspect of a dams creation.  I suggest you read the history of the TVA and the US Bureau of Reclamation is who built the Grand Coulee dam, the largest of its type in the US.  So, once again, the government and the American Taxpayer paid for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government paid for and owns the Grand Coulee Dam and it's a massive money maker and water controller. You don't like the government making money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the government?  Oh right.  It's us the taxpayers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think we should make some money and build our country at the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said that?  Why is it that when you are shown to be wrong you resort to twisting the words of what people say if not outright fabricating them?  Why is that?
Click to expand...

Then stop complaining.


----------



## mamooth

westwall said:


> It's not a "mantra" when it is a fact clown boy.  Show us a single "green" energy company that operates in the black without massive taxpayer help.  C'mon little kitty, show us.



Summary:

You claimed every green energy company in the world, with no exceptions, would go bankrupt without subsidies, but no oil company in the world, with no exceptions, would go bankrupt without subsidies.

You gave no evidence at all to back up your claim.

Even when prompted to give any kind evidence, you still refuse to provide any evidence of any sort to back up your claim.

Conclusion: You obviously can't back up your claim. If you could, you would have done so. You just made it up.


----------



## westwall

Mudda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and they are government subsidized for their very creation.   They are a good source of power but the taxpayer is involved in every aspect of a dams creation.  I suggest you read the history of the TVA and the US Bureau of Reclamation is who built the Grand Coulee dam, the largest of its type in the US.  So, once again, the government and the American Taxpayer paid for them.
> 
> 
> 
> The government paid for and owns the Grand Coulee Dam and it's a massive money maker and water controller. You don't like the government making money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the government?  Oh right.  It's us the taxpayers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think we should make some money and build our country at the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said that?  Why is it that when you are shown to be wrong you resort to twisting the words of what people say if not outright fabricating them?  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then stop complaining.
Click to expand...






  Ummm, it is YOU that is doin' the whinin' dude....  Just sayin...


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "mantra" when it is a fact clown boy.  Show us a single "green" energy company that operates in the black without massive taxpayer help.  C'mon little kitty, show us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> You claimed every green energy company in the world, with no exceptions, would go bankrupt without subsidies, but no oil company in the world, with no exceptions, would go bankrupt without subsidies.
> 
> You gave no evidence at all to back up your claim.
> 
> Even when prompted to give any kind evidence, you still refuse to provide any evidence of any sort to back up your claim.
> 
> Conclusion: You obviously can't back up your claim. If you could, you would have done so. You just made it up.
Click to expand...






Correct.  The dams are constantly maintained by the taxpayers, thus they are continuously subsidized.  Now, if you want to turn the dams over to a private company i am all for that.  Then my statement would no longer apply to that singular form of "green" energy production.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "mantra" when it is a fact clown boy.  Show us a single "green" energy company that operates in the black without massive taxpayer help.  C'mon little kitty, show us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> You claimed every green energy company in the world, with no exceptions, would go bankrupt without subsidies, but no oil company in the world, with no exceptions, would go bankrupt without subsidies.
> 
> You gave no evidence at all to back up your claim.
> 
> Even when prompted to give any kind evidence, you still refuse to provide any evidence of any sort to back up your claim.
> 
> Conclusion: You obviously can't back up your claim. If you could, you would have done so. You just made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  The dams are constantly maintained by the taxpayers, thus they are continuously subsidized.  Now, if you want to turn the dams over to a private company i am all for that.  Then my statement would no longer apply to that singular form of "green" energy production.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely sure that your ideal business model is Enron. 

No, we are not turning over the dams to private enterprise, nor the BLM or Forest Service lands. After President Clinton becomes President after 20Jan16 we will see a marked expansion of wind, solar, and even geo-thermal on the lands of the BLM and Forest Service. The first step will be grids into the areas that are rich in these resources.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a "mantra" when it is a fact clown boy.  Show us a single "green" energy company that operates in the black without massive taxpayer help.  C'mon little kitty, show us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> 
> You claimed every green energy company in the world, with no exceptions, would go bankrupt without subsidies, but no oil company in the world, with no exceptions, would go bankrupt without subsidies.
> 
> You gave no evidence at all to back up your claim.
> 
> Even when prompted to give any kind evidence, you still refuse to provide any evidence of any sort to back up your claim.
> 
> Conclusion: You obviously can't back up your claim. If you could, you would have done so. You just made it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  The dams are constantly maintained by the taxpayers, thus they are continuously subsidized.  Now, if you want to turn the dams over to a private company i am all for that.  Then my statement would no longer apply to that singular form of "green" energy production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am absolutely sure that your ideal business model is Enron.
> 
> No, we are not turning over the dams to private enterprise, nor the BLM or Forest Service lands. After President Clinton becomes President after 20Jan16 we will see a marked expansion of wind, solar, and even geo-thermal on the lands of the BLM and Forest Service. The first step will be grids into the areas that are rich in these resources.
Click to expand...







I hate to break it to you doofus but it was YOUR hero Ken Lay, who dreamed up the carbon credit scam.  So no, it is not I who am a fan of ENRON.  That would be YOU!


----------



## Mudda

westwall said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government paid for and owns the Grand Coulee Dam and it's a massive money maker and water controller. You don't like the government making money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the government?  Oh right.  It's us the taxpayers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't think we should make some money and build our country at the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said that?  Why is it that when you are shown to be wrong you resort to twisting the words of what people say if not outright fabricating them?  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then stop complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, it is YOU that is doin' the whinin' dude....  Just sayin...
Click to expand...

No, you're the one complaining about government subsidies for green energy. I'm simply pointing out that green energy can make money. Tons of it.
Ok, now you can get back to banning people from here for frivolous pseudo-violations.


----------



## westwall

Mudda said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the government?  Oh right.  It's us the taxpayers.
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think we should make some money and build our country at the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said that?  Why is it that when you are shown to be wrong you resort to twisting the words of what people say if not outright fabricating them?  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then stop complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, it is YOU that is doin' the whinin' dude....  Just sayin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're the one complaining about government subsidies for green energy. I'm simply pointing out that green energy can make money. Tons of it.
> Ok, now you can get back to banning people from here for frivolous pseudo-violations.
Click to expand...








Wrong.  You all are proclaiming that "green" energy is the bee's knee's. and that we can't live without it.  I am stating that we can live BETTER without it as the technology currently stands.  The only "green" energy that is truly green anyway is hydroelectric.  All others are far far from green.  No dearie, the whiners are you and yours.


----------



## hauke

isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?

conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !







Isn't it funny how progressives ignore reality and love to pump money into technology's that don't work?  Here's the deal moron, the people that you like want the people of the world to spend 76 trillion dollars rebuilding the energy systems of this planet.  All in the hope that they can lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years.  That is asinine.  Through you and your fellow idiots, there will be less energy available at greater cost, and with MORE environmental damage than that which we already have.

Do you understand yet just how ridiculous you are yet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !



It's funny that liberals think coal, oil and nuclear get subsidies.


----------



## phoenyx

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that liberals think coal, oil and nuclear get subsidies.
Click to expand...


What's funny is your notion that they don't get them...
G20 spends $450B annually subsidizing fossil fuel industry: study

Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch

Beyond Nuclear - Subsidies


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

phoenyx said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that liberals think coal, oil and nuclear get subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your notion that they don't get them...
> G20 spends $450B annually subsidizing fossil fuel industry: study
> 
> Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch
> 
> Beyond Nuclear - Subsidies
Click to expand...


I'm only interested in the US.
I don't care if Brazil sells cheap gas to its poor citizens.


----------



## phoenyx

Toddsterpatriot said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that liberals think coal, oil and nuclear get subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your notion that they don't get them...
> G20 spends $450B annually subsidizing fossil fuel industry: study
> 
> Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch
> 
> Beyond Nuclear - Subsidies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only interested in the US.
> I don't care if Brazil sells cheap gas to its poor citizens.
Click to expand...


Might want to read this then...
**_In 2009, the G20 group of nations, which includes the United States, pledged to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” to curb greenhouse gas emissions and tackle anthropogenic climate change. *However, according to a new report, not only is the U.S. government providing over $20 billion a year to oil, gas and coal producers, the amount has increased by 35 percent since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.*_**

Source: US Fossil Fuel Subsidies Increase 'Dramatically' Despite Climate Change Pledge

This too...
**_Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed._**

Source: Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies (2011)


----------



## flacaltenn

phoenyx said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that liberals think coal, oil and nuclear get subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your notion that they don't get them...
> G20 spends $450B annually subsidizing fossil fuel industry: study
> 
> Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch
> 
> Beyond Nuclear - Subsidies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only interested in the US.
> I don't care if Brazil sells cheap gas to its poor citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might want to read this then...
> **_In 2009, the G20 group of nations, which includes the United States, pledged to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” to curb greenhouse gas emissions and tackle anthropogenic climate change. *However, according to a new report, not only is the U.S. government providing over $20 billion a year to oil, gas and coal producers, the amount has increased by 35 percent since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.*_**
> 
> Source: US Fossil Fuel Subsidies Increase 'Dramatically' Despite Climate Change Pledge
> 
> This too...
> **_Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
> 
> The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed._**
> 
> Source: Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies (2011)
Click to expand...


Idiots attacking nuclear power in your link don't have a CLUE as to CURRENT subsidies. And liability caps don't cost a THING -- if they haven't been USED in over 50 years. That's all BS. 

The only thing the govt needs to do is to fulfull it's broken promise to provide a national waste depository. Not just for the POWER industry -- but for their OWN TOXIC wastelands they created at the nuclear weapons plant. And which pose a much more URGENT and immediate problem than anything in the nuclear power segment. 

Takes 0.7 oz per year of nuclear fuel to power a home. CERTAINLY we can accommodate that. That's about a AA battery worth of waste. 

And all those loans are LONG PAID off and money made on plants still in safe operation. America will MISS those 50 aging reactors if they go off line due to age. And newer tech will be cheaper, safer, smaller and more modular.


----------



## phoenyx

flacaltenn said:


> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that liberals think coal, oil and nuclear get subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your notion that they don't get them...
> G20 spends $450B annually subsidizing fossil fuel industry: study
> 
> Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch
> 
> Beyond Nuclear - Subsidies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only interested in the US.
> I don't care if Brazil sells cheap gas to its poor citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might want to read this then...
> **_In 2009, the G20 group of nations, which includes the United States, pledged to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” to curb greenhouse gas emissions and tackle anthropogenic climate change. *However, according to a new report, not only is the U.S. government providing over $20 billion a year to oil, gas and coal producers, the amount has increased by 35 percent since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.*_**
> 
> Source: US Fossil Fuel Subsidies Increase 'Dramatically' Despite Climate Change Pledge
> 
> This too...
> **_Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
> 
> The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed._**
> 
> Source: Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies (2011)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots attacking nuclear power in your link don't have a CLUE as to CURRENT subsidies.
Click to expand...


No need to use ad hominems on them -.- The author of the article seems to be making the claim that in the last fifty years, it's been a little over twice as expensive as other sources of energy. As to current subsidies, I found another article that gets into that:
**
*Nuclear Subsidies: $7.1 billion a year*
*As Noam Chomsky points out, most successful US industries wouldn't be competitive internationally if the federal government hadn't developed their basic technology with your tax dollars, then given it away to private companies. Computers, biotech and commercial aviation are examples, and so-preeminently-is nuclear power. Nuclear power still can't stand on its own two feet, but with a sugar daddy like the federal government, it doesn't need to.*
*The feds still provide the industry with most of its fuel and waste disposal, and much of its research. Between 1948 and 1995, the government spent more than $61 billion (in 1995 dollars) on nuclear power research- almost two-thirds of all federal support for energy research and development. The 1996 figure was $468 million.*
*The insurance subsidy*
*Since 1959, the government has also limited the liability of nuclear utilities for damage caused by accidents. Until 1988, the utilities were only responsible for the first $560 million per accident; then the limit was raised to $7 billion.*
*But $7 billion wouldn't begin to cover the costs of a core meltdown, or even a near meltdown like Chernobyl. That accident's total costs are estimated at $358 billion-not to mention the 125,000 deaths the Ukrainian government figures it has caused.*
*The Energy Information Administration calculates that if nuclear utilities were required to buy insurance coverage above that $7 billion on the open market, it would cost almost $28 million per reactor, for a total annual subsidy of $3 billion. (Even if it could pay its own way, the risks of nuclear power far outweigh its benefits. But that's the subject for another book.)*
*Enriched uranium fuel*
*Before 1993, the DOE (Department of Energy) was responsible for all domestic production of enriched uranium fuel for nuclear power plants. Since then, that's been the job of a government corporation called the US Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The USEC has been a financial disaster, even for a government program; taking into account lingering liabilities like environmental cleanups, it's more than $10 billion in the hole.*
*Having made a fine mess of things, the government plans to privatize the USEC. Naturally, they'll try to give the private company buying USEC as many assets as possible, and keep as many liabilities as they can, so that we and our children can pay for them. For example, the DOE plans to take large amounts of radioactive waste from the eventually privatized corporation, even though it has no place to safely store them. These liabilities will cost taxpayers an estimated $ 1.1 billion.*
*But wait-there's more. We lose on the selling price too, which the GAO (Government Accounting Office) estimates at $1.7 to $2.2 billion. Since the net present value of USEC cash flows is $2.8 to $3.5 billion, taxpayers would be out between $600 million and $1.8 billion on the deal. So the total we'll pay for privatizing the USEC will fall between $1.7 and $2.9 billion.***




flacaltenn said:


> And liability caps don't cost a THING -- if they haven't been USED in over 50 years.



Sounds to me from the article I just sourced that liability caps are still very much in effect.



flacaltenn said:


> The only thing the govt needs to do is to fulfull it's broken promise to provide a national waste depository. Not just for the POWER industry -- but for their OWN TOXIC wastelands they created at the nuclear weapons plant. And which pose a much more URGENT and immediate problem than anything in the nuclear power segment.



I take it you're talking about the enriched uranium, which the above article references? Why does the U.S. even need to make more bombs anyway? I can't help but wonder how many times the U.S. and Russia can destroy the world over already -.-...

Here's some info on Nuclear Energy from Greenpeace:
***
*Nuclear Energy*
_Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes.
_

_Greenpeace got its start protesting nuclear weapons testing back in 1971. We’ve been fighting against nuclear weapons and nuclear power ever since.

High profile disasters in Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima, Japan in 2011 have raised public awareness of the dangers of nuclear power. Consequently, zeal for nuclear energy has fizzled. The catastrophic risks of nuclear energy—like the meltdowns of nuclear reactors in Japan or Ukraine—far outweigh the potential benefits.

New nuclear plants are more expensive and take longer to build than renewable energy sources like wind or solar. If we are to avoid the most damaging impacts of climate change, we need solutions that are fast and affordable. Nuclear power is neither.

We can do better than trading off one disaster for another. The nuclear age is over and the age of renewables has begun.

*The Dangers of Nuclear Energy*
Meltdowns like the ones in Fukushima or Chernobyl released enormous amounts of radiation into the surrounding communities, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate. Many of them may never come back. If the industry’s current track record is any indication, we can expect a major meltdown about once per decade.

The possibility of a catastrophic accident at a U.S. nuclear plant can not be dismissed.

There is still no safe, reliable solution for dealing with the radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants. Every waste dump in the U.S. leaks radiation into the environment, and nuclear plants themselves are running out of ways to store highly radioactive waste on site. The site selected to store the U.S.’s radioactive waste—Yucca Mountain in Nevada—is both volcanically and seismically active.

Beyond the risks associated with nuclear power and radioactive waste, the threat of nuclear weapons looms large. The spread of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons is a threat for national security and the safety of the entire planet._
***
Source: Nuclear Energy


----------



## flacaltenn

"According to Noah Chomsky"   youre kidding right? Those numbers are completely bogus. Counting all nuclear research since 1948 and liability caps that have never been triggered. It's baseless. 

Govt shouldn't be involved directly in manufacturing nuclear fuel. IS no longer a sole source and everything is MUCH better without their costly inefficient monopoly. You're quote almost 20 year old material,. And all those 50 reactors have been quietly performing and pumping out reliable services and billable KW-hrs for damn near 50 years (most of them),  So any reasonable accounting could only be done from date of initial service to today. 

Screw the 20 year old  "guesses" by Noam Chomsky... And all that other propaganda you dug up. . 

TODAY'S nuclear technology is safer, cheaper, more recyclable. Time to build out some demonstrations and stop fucking arguing about ANCIENT installations and plants that built before the moon landing.


----------



## phoenyx

flacaltenn said:


> "According to Noah Chomsky"  youre kidding right?




The article never said "According to Noah Chomsky" (for starters, it's Noam Chomsky, as you later correct in your post to me). Noam Chomsky was only referenced regarding successful US industries in general, not on Nuclear technology specifically. Another thing, I'd like to apologize for not including the source of my article. It was late, and I forgot. The source is here:

Corporate Welfare Nuclear Subsidies: $7.1 billion a year


It's an excerpt from the book "Take the Rich off Welfare".




flacaltenn said:


> Those numbers are completely bogus.




Saying it doesn't make it so. That being said, I decided to find a alternative sources for this type of information, a double check if you will, and I found some. Here's an excerpt from one article I found:

**

_*U.S. government *subsidies for energy are as old as the nation, says Nancy Pfund, a managing partner at DBL Investors, a venture capital firm, and an anthropologist. In arecent study for DBL Investors, Pfund and coauthor Ben Healey, a Yale University economics graduate student and former Massachusetts legislative committee director, trace U.S. government energy incentives back to 1789, when leaders of the new nation slapped a tariff on the sale of British coal slipped into U.S. ports as ship ballast.


Using government documents, academic papers, and a mix of other data and reports, Pfund and Healey offer a historical perspective on today’s debate over energy subsidies. Their study finds a paucity of government support for renewable energy sources compared with past government investment in coal, gas, oil, or nuclear energy sources, which helped the country transition to new energy technologies and infrastructures.


The study comes as President Barack Obama continues to push for more government support for renewable, non-fossil-fuel energy sources. This push is intended to mitigate climate-change impacts of energy generation by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, as well as to create new jobs and industries. However, with the failure of solar energy manufacturer Solyndra and the loss of $535 million in taxpayer money that supported the company, Republicans and a few Democrats in the House of Representatives have attacked federal programs that support a transition to renewable energy (C&EN, Oct. 3, page 28).


Pfund and Healey favor government investments in energy, and their research supports the view that over the years new transitional energy sources have spurred U.S. economic growth and innovation. But their study, “What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future,” also finds that federal support of renewable energy falls short of the aid the federal government has given to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy when they were new. In fact, they say, backing for renewable energy is trivial in size.


*In comparing *current support for renewable energy with past aid for today’s traditional energy sources, the report focuses on two types of assistance: funding during the first 15 years of support and annualized expenditures over the life of the energy source.


The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support.


Federal support during the first 15 years works out to $3.3 billion annually for nuclear energy and $1.8 billion annually for oil and gas, but an average of only $400 million a year in inflation-adjusted dollars for renewables.


For coal, which generates half the nation’s electricity, the authors were unable to quantify government support for the first 15 years, which includes federal and state aid. Coal, Pfund notes, benefits from a host of centuries-old programs that signal a rich history of aid, which is intertwined with the development of the nation. The aid runs deep and comes in many forms—state and federal tax breaks for mining and use; technological support for mining and exploration; national resource maps to encourage exploration and development; tariffs on foreign coal; and aid to steel smelters, railroads, and other industries that burn coal to encourage greater use and develop a steady market for coal.


“It has been a long heyday for coal,” she says, describing states and workers vying for jobs and business..._

**


Source: American Chemical Society



I found yet another article that has a helpful chart to put the subsidies of different energy sources over the decades in perspective:

**

_Ever hear the story about why renewable energy can’t compete without a subsidy? You hear it all the time from the fossil fuel industry. And the response from renewables? Take away fossil fuel subsidies, and they’d be glad to compete on level terms.


This graph below, displayed today by David Hochschild, a commissioner with the California Energy Commission, at the Energy Productivity Summer Study in Sydney, illustrates why the fossil fuel and nuclear industries don’t want that to happen.


Studies by the International Energy Agency point out that global subsidies for fossil fuels outstrip those for renewable energy nearly 10-fold. The International Monetary Fund said if climate and environmental costs were included, then the fossil fuel subsides increased another 10 times to nearly $5 trillion a year._





**

Source: The Myth About Renewable Energy Subsidies


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

phoenyx said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that liberals think coal, oil and nuclear get subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's funny is your notion that they don't get them...
> G20 spends $450B annually subsidizing fossil fuel industry: study
> 
> Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch
> 
> Beyond Nuclear - Subsidies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only interested in the US.
> I don't care if Brazil sells cheap gas to its poor citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might want to read this then...
> **_In 2009, the G20 group of nations, which includes the United States, pledged to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” to curb greenhouse gas emissions and tackle anthropogenic climate change. *However, according to a new report, not only is the U.S. government providing over $20 billion a year to oil, gas and coal producers, the amount has increased by 35 percent since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.*_**
> 
> Source: US Fossil Fuel Subsidies Increase 'Dramatically' Despite Climate Change Pledge
> 
> This too...
> **_Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
> 
> The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed._**
> 
> Source: Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies (2011)
Click to expand...


*However, according to a new report, not only is the U.S. government providing over $20 billion a year to oil, gas and coal producers, the amount has increased by 35 percent since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.***

Here's a little clue for you, allowing a business to write off a typical business expense is not a subsidy, even if it is a gas, coal or oil company.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

phoenyx said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phoenyx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that liberals think coal, oil and nuclear get subsidies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is your notion that they don't get them...
> G20 spends $450B annually subsidizing fossil fuel industry: study
> 
> Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch
> 
> Beyond Nuclear - Subsidies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only interested in the US.
> I don't care if Brazil sells cheap gas to its poor citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might want to read this then...
> **_In 2009, the G20 group of nations, which includes the United States, pledged to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” to curb greenhouse gas emissions and tackle anthropogenic climate change. *However, according to a new report, not only is the U.S. government providing over $20 billion a year to oil, gas and coal producers, the amount has increased by 35 percent since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.*_**
> 
> Source: US Fossil Fuel Subsidies Increase 'Dramatically' Despite Climate Change Pledge
> 
> This too...
> **_Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
> 
> The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed._**
> 
> Source: Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies (2011)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Idiots attacking nuclear power in your link don't have a CLUE as to CURRENT subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to use ad hominems on them -.- The author of the article seems to be making the claim that in the last fifty years, it's been a little over twice as expensive as other sources of energy. As to current subsidies, I found another article that gets into that:
> **
> *Nuclear Subsidies: $7.1 billion a year*
> *As Noam Chomsky points out, most successful US industries wouldn't be competitive internationally if the federal government hadn't developed their basic technology with your tax dollars, then given it away to private companies. Computers, biotech and commercial aviation are examples, and so-preeminently-is nuclear power. Nuclear power still can't stand on its own two feet, but with a sugar daddy like the federal government, it doesn't need to.*
> *The feds still provide the industry with most of its fuel and waste disposal, and much of its research. Between 1948 and 1995, the government spent more than $61 billion (in 1995 dollars) on nuclear power research- almost two-thirds of all federal support for energy research and development. The 1996 figure was $468 million.*
> *The insurance subsidy*
> *Since 1959, the government has also limited the liability of nuclear utilities for damage caused by accidents. Until 1988, the utilities were only responsible for the first $560 million per accident; then the limit was raised to $7 billion.*
> *But $7 billion wouldn't begin to cover the costs of a core meltdown, or even a near meltdown like Chernobyl. That accident's total costs are estimated at $358 billion-not to mention the 125,000 deaths the Ukrainian government figures it has caused.*
> *The Energy Information Administration calculates that if nuclear utilities were required to buy insurance coverage above that $7 billion on the open market, it would cost almost $28 million per reactor, for a total annual subsidy of $3 billion. (Even if it could pay its own way, the risks of nuclear power far outweigh its benefits. But that's the subject for another book.)*
> *Enriched uranium fuel*
> *Before 1993, the DOE (Department of Energy) was responsible for all domestic production of enriched uranium fuel for nuclear power plants. Since then, that's been the job of a government corporation called the US Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The USEC has been a financial disaster, even for a government program; taking into account lingering liabilities like environmental cleanups, it's more than $10 billion in the hole.*
> *Having made a fine mess of things, the government plans to privatize the USEC. Naturally, they'll try to give the private company buying USEC as many assets as possible, and keep as many liabilities as they can, so that we and our children can pay for them. For example, the DOE plans to take large amounts of radioactive waste from the eventually privatized corporation, even though it has no place to safely store them. These liabilities will cost taxpayers an estimated $ 1.1 billion.*
> *But wait-there's more. We lose on the selling price too, which the GAO (Government Accounting Office) estimates at $1.7 to $2.2 billion. Since the net present value of USEC cash flows is $2.8 to $3.5 billion, taxpayers would be out between $600 million and $1.8 billion on the deal. So the total we'll pay for privatizing the USEC will fall between $1.7 and $2.9 billion.***
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And liability caps don't cost a THING -- if they haven't been USED in over 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me from the article I just sourced that liability caps are still very much in effect.
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing the govt needs to do is to fulfull it's broken promise to provide a national waste depository. Not just for the POWER industry -- but for their OWN TOXIC wastelands they created at the nuclear weapons plant. And which pose a much more URGENT and immediate problem than anything in the nuclear power segment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you're talking about the enriched uranium, which the above article references? Why does the U.S. even need to make more bombs anyway? I can't help but wonder how many times the U.S. and Russia can destroy the world over already -.-...
> 
> Here's some info on Nuclear Energy from Greenpeace:
> ***
> *Nuclear Energy*
> _Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes.
> _
> 
> _Greenpeace got its start protesting nuclear weapons testing back in 1971. We’ve been fighting against nuclear weapons and nuclear power ever since.
> 
> High profile disasters in Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima, Japan in 2011 have raised public awareness of the dangers of nuclear power. Consequently, zeal for nuclear energy has fizzled. The catastrophic risks of nuclear energy—like the meltdowns of nuclear reactors in Japan or Ukraine—far outweigh the potential benefits.
> 
> New nuclear plants are more expensive and take longer to build than renewable energy sources like wind or solar. If we are to avoid the most damaging impacts of climate change, we need solutions that are fast and affordable. Nuclear power is neither.
> 
> We can do better than trading off one disaster for another. The nuclear age is over and the age of renewables has begun.
> 
> *The Dangers of Nuclear Energy*
> Meltdowns like the ones in Fukushima or Chernobyl released enormous amounts of radiation into the surrounding communities, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate. Many of them may never come back. If the industry’s current track record is any indication, we can expect a major meltdown about once per decade.
> 
> The possibility of a catastrophic accident at a U.S. nuclear plant can not be dismissed.
> 
> There is still no safe, reliable solution for dealing with the radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants. Every waste dump in the U.S. leaks radiation into the environment, and nuclear plants themselves are running out of ways to store highly radioactive waste on site. The site selected to store the U.S.’s radioactive waste—Yucca Mountain in Nevada—is both volcanically and seismically active.
> 
> Beyond the risks associated with nuclear power and radioactive waste, the threat of nuclear weapons looms large. The spread of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons is a threat for national security and the safety of the entire planet._
> ***
> Source: Nuclear Energy
Click to expand...


_Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. Say no to new nukes.
_
But carbon dioxide is killing the planet......waaaahhhh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

phoenyx said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "According to Noah Chomsky"  youre kidding right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article never said "According to Noah Chomsky" (for starters, it's Noam Chomsky, as you later correct in your post to me). Noam Chomsky was only referenced regarding successful US industries in general, not on Nuclear technology specifically. Another thing, I'd like to apologize for not including the source of my article. It was late, and I forgot. The source is here:
> 
> Corporate Welfare Nuclear Subsidies: $7.1 billion a year
> 
> 
> It's an excerpt from the book "Take the Rich off Welfare".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those numbers are completely bogus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Saying it doesn't make it so. That being said, I decided to find a alternative sources for this type of information, a double check if you will, and I found some. Here's an excerpt from one article I found:
> 
> **
> 
> _*U.S. government *subsidies for energy are as old as the nation, says Nancy Pfund, a managing partner at DBL Investors, a venture capital firm, and an anthropologist. In arecent study for DBL Investors, Pfund and coauthor Ben Healey, a Yale University economics graduate student and former Massachusetts legislative committee director, trace U.S. government energy incentives back to 1789, when leaders of the new nation slapped a tariff on the sale of British coal slipped into U.S. ports as ship ballast.
> 
> 
> Using government documents, academic papers, and a mix of other data and reports, Pfund and Healey offer a historical perspective on today’s debate over energy subsidies. Their study finds a paucity of government support for renewable energy sources compared with past government investment in coal, gas, oil, or nuclear energy sources, which helped the country transition to new energy technologies and infrastructures.
> 
> 
> The study comes as President Barack Obama continues to push for more government support for renewable, non-fossil-fuel energy sources. This push is intended to mitigate climate-change impacts of energy generation by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, as well as to create new jobs and industries. However, with the failure of solar energy manufacturer Solyndra and the loss of $535 million in taxpayer money that supported the company, Republicans and a few Democrats in the House of Representatives have attacked federal programs that support a transition to renewable energy (C&EN, Oct. 3, page 28).
> 
> 
> Pfund and Healey favor government investments in energy, and their research supports the view that over the years new transitional energy sources have spurred U.S. economic growth and innovation. But their study, “What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future,” also finds that federal support of renewable energy falls short of the aid the federal government has given to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy when they were new. In fact, they say, backing for renewable energy is trivial in size.
> 
> 
> *In comparing *current support for renewable energy with past aid for today’s traditional energy sources, the report focuses on two types of assistance: funding during the first 15 years of support and annualized expenditures over the life of the energy source.
> 
> 
> The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies. It finds that oil and gas subsidies, including tax breaks and government spending, were about five times as much as aid to renewables during their first 15 years of development; nuclear received 10 times as much support.
> 
> 
> Federal support during the first 15 years works out to $3.3 billion annually for nuclear energy and $1.8 billion annually for oil and gas, but an average of only $400 million a year in inflation-adjusted dollars for renewables.
> 
> 
> For coal, which generates half the nation’s electricity, the authors were unable to quantify government support for the first 15 years, which includes federal and state aid. Coal, Pfund notes, benefits from a host of centuries-old programs that signal a rich history of aid, which is intertwined with the development of the nation. The aid runs deep and comes in many forms—state and federal tax breaks for mining and use; technological support for mining and exploration; national resource maps to encourage exploration and development; tariffs on foreign coal; and aid to steel smelters, railroads, and other industries that burn coal to encourage greater use and develop a steady market for coal.
> 
> 
> “It has been a long heyday for coal,” she says, describing states and workers vying for jobs and business..._
> 
> **
> 
> 
> Source: American Chemical Society
> 
> 
> 
> I found yet another article that has a helpful chart to put the subsidies of different energy sources over the decades in perspective:
> 
> **
> 
> _Ever hear the story about why renewable energy can’t compete without a subsidy? You hear it all the time from the fossil fuel industry. And the response from renewables? Take away fossil fuel subsidies, and they’d be glad to compete on level terms.
> 
> 
> This graph below, displayed today by David Hochschild, a commissioner with the California Energy Commission, at the Energy Productivity Summer Study in Sydney, illustrates why the fossil fuel and nuclear industries don’t want that to happen.
> 
> 
> Studies by the International Energy Agency point out that global subsidies for fossil fuels outstrip those for renewable energy nearly 10-fold. The International Monetary Fund said if climate and environmental costs were included, then the fossil fuel subsides increased another 10 times to nearly $5 trillion a year._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **
> 
> Source: The Myth About Renewable Energy Subsidies
Click to expand...



_Ever hear the story about why renewable energy can’t compete without a subsidy? You hear it all the time from the fossil fuel industry. And the response from renewables? Take away fossil fuel subsidies, and they’d be glad to compete on level terms.
_
LOL!
Bring it on bitches!!!


----------



## hauke

the basics of this discusion is a lie
the unsustainability of green energy.
green energy is sustainable energy, so its an oxymoron


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> the basics of this discusion is a lie
> the unsustainability of green energy.
> green energy is sustainable energy, so its an oxymoron



Sure, if you waste enough tax money on it, many stupid, uneconomic things can be "sustained".


----------



## Sun Devil 92

OnePercenter said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy works when it's owned by the individual.  If you can live off the solar panels on your roof then it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My property in San Diego (Coronado) receives 93% of electricity (including my car) used via solar. Still have 21 years on the warranty.
> 
> According to Republicans in Nevada, solar should only be for the rich.
Click to expand...


So what ?

How much did it cost to replace...full life cycle comparison please.

You can get all the solar you want it you are willing to spend money......IF.


----------



## mamooth

That dang unsustainable green energy just keeps growing.

And 10 years from now, after it's continued to grow yugely each year, we'll still be seeing the same kinds of threads.

U.S. Electricity Generation From Renewables Has Broken Records Every Month in 2016
---
According to EIA’s data, net U.S. electricity generation from non-hydroelectric, utility-scale renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) through June 2016 was 17 percent higher than in the first half of 2015.
---


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mamooth said:


> That dang unsustainable green energy just keeps growing.
> 
> And 10 years from now, after it's continued to grow yugely each year, we'll still be seeing the same kinds of threads.
> 
> U.S. Electricity Generation From Renewables Has Broken Records Every Month in 2016
> ---
> According to EIA’s data, net U.S. electricity generation from non-hydroelectric, utility-scale renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) through June 2016 was 17 percent higher than in the first half of 2015.
> ---



_Under the company’s 20-year agreement with Rhode Island’s regulated utility, __National Grid__ , Deepwater Wind will receive 24.4 cents per kwh for all the power those turbines can generate. That’s more than twice the wholesale price that National Grid pays for electricity now. And a lot even for New Englanders used to paying 17 cents per kwh. The average American pays 10 cents._

_Worse, the contract has a built-in price escalator of 3.5% per year. That means by the end of the 20 years National Grid will be paying Deepwater 50 cents for each windy kwh......._

_Unsurprisingly, Deepwater Wind argues that it is doing Rhode Island a favor. All the power on Block Island comes from generators powered by 1 million gallons of diesel fuel a year, ferried over from the mainland. Its 1,100 utility customers have been paying about 50 cents per kwh in recent years, about half of that tied directly to diesel prices. Block Island will soon be able to mothball those diesel generators, but not because the quaint island is going 100% wind power. Some of the wind power will flow to the mainland over the new $107 million subsea cable that ratepayers are footing. In return Block Island will be able to draw power from the mainland whenever the wind dies down._

_The islanders’ __new price __for power will be on the order of 30 cents per kwh. They will save about $2 million a year on power, displace a million gallons of diesel and eliminate about 40,000 tons a year of carbon emissions. Extremely modest benefits, given the roughly $900 million in costs.

Is America's First Offshore Wind Farm A Real Revolution Or Just Another Green Boondoggle?
_
Gotta love that cheap wind power.


----------



## hauke

toddsterpatriot is a conglomerate of  diffrent bought people, hes not 1 person.

after reading enough of "his" its obviouse, toddsterpatriot is a construct from people who do propaganda


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> toddsterpatriot is a conglomerate of  diffrent bought people, hes not 1 person.
> 
> after reading enough of "his" its obviouse, toddsterpatriot is a construct from people who do propaganda



Moron says what?


----------



## hauke

todsterpatriot your not a person your a propaganda tool

isn t chicago nr 1 city in the USA for advertising ?

toddsterpatriot is an adman idea

look at that picture i bet a dozen well paied people produced it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> todsterpatriot your not a person your a propaganda tool



When I point out liberal idiocy, I can see why that would upset liberals.
Don't cry.......


----------



## hauke

don t worry your value as an add is going down to zero

create some new man as your propaganda tool , but you are obviouse


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> don t worry your value as an add is going down to zero
> 
> create some new man as your propaganda tool , but you are obviouse



Waah


----------



## hauke

just look at the picture thats been designed


----------



## hauke

and now please understand that big oil and coal does have enough money to use even this board to do propaganda, they got a billion dollar propaganda 
and a few people working 24 hours a day selling their message just costs 50 000 $ a month


----------



## Wry Catcher

P@triot said:


> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy



I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
Click to expand...

I bet your great-great-grandfather saw the first "horseless vehicle" and yelled out "the government should force you to regress back to the days of the Roman Chariot". That's all you progressives do - regress society back to the stone ages.

Think about it honestly for a minute - progressives want to regress us back to the 1800's economically with Karl Marx's failed economic theory. They want to take regress us back to the 1700's politically with a King George III type dictatorship. They want to regress us back to the 1600's with energy - banning coal, nuclear, fracking, etc. and leaving burning candles as our only source of heat and light so that a fuck'n shrub in Illinois has better quality of life than a child. And they want to regress us back to the 1500's with education.

Here's the thing sparky - I _love_ technology. I embrace technology like nobody else. I leverage technology like nobody else. But what I don't love is failure. Sadly, you and your liberal pals love failure. You live for failure. You embrace failure like nobody else. The "green" energy pipe dream is decades away. It's been such a catastrophic failure that Jimmy Carter started subsidizing it in the 1970's and here we are over 40 years later and trillions of dollars later, and it _still_ cost millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a fuck'n AAA battery. 

It takes a very special kind of stupid to embrace failure - but that's what liberals do.


----------



## Wry Catcher

P@triot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet your great-great-grandfather saw the first "horseless vehicle" and yelled out "the government should force you to regress back to the days of the Roman Chariot". That's all you progressives do - regress society back to the stone ages.
> 
> Think about it honestly for a minute - progressives want to regress us back to the 1800's economically with Karl Marx's failed economic theory. They want to take regress us back to the 1700's politically with a King George III type dictatorship. They want to regress us back to the 1600's with energy - banning coal, nuclear, fracking, etc. and leaving burning candles as our only source of heat and light so that a fuck'n shrub in Illinois has better quality of life than a child. And they want to regress us back to the 1500's with education.
> 
> Here's the thing sparky - I _love_ technology. I embrace technology like nobody else. I leverage technology like nobody else. But what I don't love is failure. Sadly, you and your liberal pals love failure. You live for failure. You embrace failure like nobody else. The "green" energy pipe dream is decades away. It's been such a catastrophic failure that Jimmy Carter started subsidizing it in the 1970's and here we are over 40 years later and trillions of dollars later, and it _still_ cost millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a fuck'n AAA battery.
> 
> It takes a very special kind of stupid to embrace failure - but that's what liberals do.
Click to expand...


Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn, you bore me too.  Way too many words in creating a foolish post.


----------



## flacaltenn

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
Click to expand...


Great Grandpaps HAD a windmill. Used it PROPERLY.  To pump water which was stored without loss of efficiency. Didn't try to power a Medical Center with one.. 



He was smarter than most leftists on energy usage.


----------



## Mr. H.

Green energy would not exist for lack of fossil fuels. And therein lies the irony of the whole bullshit of it all. 
Ethanol, wind farms, solar installations. They all owe their allegiance to fossil fuels. 

Fuck that shit.


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet your great-great-grandfather saw the first "horseless vehicle" and yelled out "the government should force you to regress back to the days of the Roman Chariot". That's all you progressives do - regress society back to the stone ages.
> 
> Think about it honestly for a minute - progressives want to regress us back to the 1800's economically with Karl Marx's failed economic theory. They want to take regress us back to the 1700's politically with a King George III type dictatorship. They want to regress us back to the 1600's with energy - banning coal, nuclear, fracking, etc. and leaving burning candles as our only source of heat and light so that a fuck'n shrub in Illinois has better quality of life than a child. And they want to regress us back to the 1500's with education.
> 
> Here's the thing sparky - I _love_ technology. I embrace technology like nobody else. I leverage technology like nobody else. But what I don't love is failure. Sadly, you and your liberal pals love failure. You live for failure. You embrace failure like nobody else. The "green" energy pipe dream is decades away. It's been such a catastrophic failure that Jimmy Carter started subsidizing it in the 1970's and here we are over 40 years later and trillions of dollars later, and it _still_ cost millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a fuck'n AAA battery.
> 
> It takes a very special kind of stupid to embrace failure - but that's what liberals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn, you bore me too.  Way too many words in creating a foolish post.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect a liberal to be able to read more than three word "sentences". See spot run. After all, there's a reason you people need to live off of government.


----------



## P@triot

Liberalism continues to prop up _extreme_ failure...

The program isn’t preparing students to take advantage of the wave of the future but setting them up for failure. Renewable energy’s (particularly wind and solar) business model is built on a house of subsidized cards. The industry stands to benefit from *direct grants, targeted tax credits, taxpayer-backed loans, and generous handouts at the state level such as renewable electricity standards that mandate a certain percentage of a state’s power supply be generated from renewable sources*.

Take the subsidies away and you’re left with intermittent, expensive energy technologies that in most instances are prohibitively costly to compete with conventional sources of energy like coal, oil, or natural gas.

If the subsidies cease to exist, training young Americans to enter the renewable energy workforce will be as useful as teaching them to build and sell typewriters and VCRs.

Renewable Energy Training a Bad Deal for DC Students


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think we should make some money and build our country at the same time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said that?  Why is it that when you are shown to be wrong you resort to twisting the words of what people say if not outright fabricating them?  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then stop complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, it is YOU that is doin' the whinin' dude....  Just sayin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're the one complaining about government subsidies for green energy. I'm simply pointing out that green energy can make money. Tons of it.
> Ok, now you can get back to banning people from here for frivolous pseudo-violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  You all are proclaiming that "green" energy is the bee's knee's. and that we can't live without it.  I am stating that we can live BETTER without it as the technology currently stands.  The only "green" energy that is truly green anyway is hydroelectric.  All others are far far from green.  No dearie, the whiners are you and yours.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what you think, Mr. Westwall, we are proceeding without your kind. Utility solar now being installed by the Gigawatt. More and more wind. More grid to take advantage of the areas of good wind. 

And, after President Clinton takes office, even more grid into area in Wyoming and other high wind energy areas to pick up the mills that will be installed.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it funny how progressives ignore reality and love to pump money into technology's that don't work?  Here's the deal moron, the people that you like want the people of the world to spend 76 trillion dollars rebuilding the energy systems of this planet.  All in the hope that they can lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years.  That is asinine.  Through you and your fellow idiots, there will be less energy available at greater cost, and with MORE environmental damage than that which we already have.
> 
> Do you understand yet just how ridiculous you are yet?
Click to expand...

What I understand is that there are a lot old liars like you that cannot stand the future. Just get out of the way and let us get the job done. We don't need you people, and will ignore you as we build the future.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  You all are proclaiming that "green" energy is the bee's knee's. and that we can't live without it.  I am stating that we can live BETTER without it as the technology currently stands.  The only "green" energy that is truly green anyway is hydroelectric.  All others are far far from green.  No dearie, the whiners are you and yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter what you think, Mr. Westwall, we are proceeding without your kind. Utility solar now being installed by the Gigawatt. More and more wind. More grid to take advantage of the areas of good wind.
> 
> And, after President Clinton takes office, even more grid into area in Wyoming and other high wind energy areas to pick up the mills that will be installed.
Click to expand...

So you admit that it's not "green" (you certainly didn't attempt to dispute what Westwall said) but you're going to brag that your side of the aisle is dumb enough to move full speed ahead with a failed technology which costs billions of dollars, produces the same energy as fuck'n AAA battery, and isn't even that "green" to begin with? 

That's a special kind of stupid that could _only_ come from the left.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> What I understand is that there are a lot old liars like you that cannot stand the future. Just get out of the way and let us get the job done. We don't need you people, and will ignore you as we build the future.


Spoken like a _true_ authoritarian communist. 

We have our work cut out for us trying to rebuild this nation that you and your idiot ideology has _destroyed_. You moron's want economic policy from the 1800's (Karl Marx), political policy from the 1700's (King George III - as you just illustrated),education from the 1600's (before real science and technology), and energy policy from the 1500's (where we can only burn a fuck'n candle for heat and light). Nobody does regression like progressives.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mudda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I ever said that?  Why is it that when you are shown to be wrong you resort to twisting the words of what people say if not outright fabricating them?  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> Then stop complaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, it is YOU that is doin' the whinin' dude....  Just sayin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you're the one complaining about government subsidies for green energy. I'm simply pointing out that green energy can make money. Tons of it.
> Ok, now you can get back to banning people from here for frivolous pseudo-violations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  You all are proclaiming that "green" energy is the bee's knee's. and that we can't live without it.  I am stating that we can live BETTER without it as the technology currently stands.  The only "green" energy that is truly green anyway is hydroelectric.  All others are far far from green.  No dearie, the whiners are you and yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doesn't matter what you think, Mr. Westwall, we are proceeding without your kind. Utility solar now being installed by the Gigawatt. More and more wind. More grid to take advantage of the areas of good wind.
> 
> And, after President Clinton takes office, even more grid into area in Wyoming and other high wind energy areas to pick up the mills that will be installed.
Click to expand...






Yes, more and more fraud and they will shutter them just like the Germans are shutting them down.  Because they SUCK!


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it funny how progressives ignore reality and love to pump money into technology's that don't work?  Here's the deal moron, the people that you like want the people of the world to spend 76 trillion dollars rebuilding the energy systems of this planet.  All in the hope that they can lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years.  That is asinine.  Through you and your fellow idiots, there will be less energy available at greater cost, and with MORE environmental damage than that which we already have.
> 
> Do you understand yet just how ridiculous you are yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I understand is that there are a lot old liars like you that cannot stand the future. Just get out of the way and let us get the job done. We don't need you people, and will ignore you as we build the future.
Click to expand...






I would love to enjoy the future.  Windmills are the PAST.  Silly people like you think they are somehow special because they like old technology.  Here's the deal, dude....it's old technology because it isn't as efficient as fossil fuels.  What would be a future technology would be a broadcast energy system like Tesla envisioned.  I'm all over that as that is truly a revolutionary technology.  

Windmills aren't.


----------



## hauke

question : when all the oil has been burned when all the coal has been burned when all the gas has been burned when all the uranium has been used##

how do you compare a solarpanel to nothing ?


----------



## Wyatt earp

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
Click to expand...




You seriously think we want to drive this clown car







Instead of this







You're crazy


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> question : when all the oil has been burned when all the coal has been burned when all the gas has been burned when all the uranium has been used##
> 
> how do you compare a solarpanel to nothing ?




Solar panels would have been obsolete by about 500 years if your above scenario ever happens.


----------



## flacaltenn

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
Click to expand...


And NOW -- you're forcing us back to horses.  Go figure.. Will reach a point where I prefer to take ole Charley into town than mess with those tiny "coal charged" electric carts. 

There's no market for wind. You can't write a contract to provide XXX Megawatts on Tues afternoon. You don't run a Grid for the modern world on "Maybe Thurs for a couple hours"

And neither do you power any city on a summer night with Solar. When at 10PM the demand is 80% of what it was at NOON.  BEST deal for solar is to reduce that Noon peak by 10 or 15%.  That's it. That's all ya got. Except for Cuisanarts under the ocean to tear up sea life -- or Geothermal which is a dirty mining/fracking operation. 

You can whine all ya want. That list of your "alternatives" are NOT alternatives.


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> question : when all the oil has been burned when all the coal has been burned when all the gas has been burned when all the uranium has been used##
> 
> how do you compare a solarpanel to nothing ?








Get back to me in 200 years when the oil has been used up.  Then you can come back 150 years after that for the coal, and then you can come back a couple of thousand years after that for the radioactives.


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet your great-great-grandfather saw the first "horseless vehicle" and yelled out "the government should force you to regress back to the days of the Roman Chariot". That's all you progressives do - regress society back to the stone ages.
> 
> Think about it honestly for a minute - progressives want to regress us back to the 1800's economically with Karl Marx's failed economic theory. They want to take regress us back to the 1700's politically with a King George III type dictatorship. They want to regress us back to the 1600's with energy - banning coal, nuclear, fracking, etc. and leaving burning candles as our only source of heat and light so that a fuck'n shrub in Illinois has better quality of life than a child. And they want to regress us back to the 1500's with education.
> 
> Here's the thing sparky - I _love_ technology. I embrace technology like nobody else. I leverage technology like nobody else. But what I don't love is failure. Sadly, you and your liberal pals love failure. You live for failure. You embrace failure like nobody else. The "green" energy pipe dream is decades away. It's been such a catastrophic failure that Jimmy Carter started subsidizing it in the 1970's and here we are over 40 years later and trillions of dollars later, and it _still_ cost millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a fuck'n AAA battery.
> 
> It takes a very special kind of stupid to embrace failure - but that's what liberals do.
Click to expand...

*What a fucking stupid bastard you are. Wind and solar are scaring the utilities because of the amount of electricity they produce*.

Texas and California have a bizarre problem: too much renewable energy

Solar and wind power are coming online at rates unforeseen only a few years ago. That’s a good thing if your goal is to decarbonize the energy sector. But if you’re a utility or independent power producer and you make your money selling electricity, it can be not such a good thing.

In places with abundant wind and solar resources, like Texas and California, the price of electricity is dipping more and more frequently into negative territory. In other words, utilities that operate big fossil-fuel or nuclear plants, which are very costly to switch off and ramp up again, are running into problems when wind and solar farms are generating at their peaks. With too much energy supply to the grid, spot prices for power turn negative and utilities are forced to pay grid operators to take power off their hands.

That’s happened on about a dozen days over the past year in sunny Southern California, according to data from _Bloomberg_, and it’s liable to happen more often in the future. “In Texas, power at one major hub traded below zero for almost 50 hours in November and again in March,” according to the state’s grid operator. In Germany, negative energy prices have become commonplace, dramatically slashing utility revenues despite renewable energy subsidies that bolster electricity prices much more than in the United States.

*However, as the continued decrease in price for grid scale storage makes that technology a necessity, firing up the nukes and natural gas generators will become increasingly unnecessary. And the price of electricity will come down, and the profits of the utilities will stabalize.*


----------



## Old Rocks

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NOW -- you're forcing us back to horses.  Go figure.. Will reach a point where I prefer to take ole Charley into town than mess with those tiny "coal charged" electric carts.
> 
> There's no market for wind. You can't write a contract to provide XXX Megawatts on Tues afternoon. You don't run a Grid for the modern world on "Maybe Thurs for a couple hours"
> 
> And neither do you power any city on a summer night with Solar. When at 10PM the demand is 80% of what it was at NOON.  BEST deal for solar is to reduce that Noon peak by 10 or 15%.  That's it. That's all ya got. Except for Cuisanarts under the ocean to tear up sea life -- or Geothermal which is a dirty mining/fracking operation.
> 
> You can whine all ya want. That list of your "alternatives" are NOT alternatives.
Click to expand...

*Mr. Flacaltenn, you are truly full of shit on this subject.*

https://www.innotap.com/2016/06/grid-scale-batteries-gain-ground-research-continues-seek-lower-cost/

In deregulated electricity markets like most of Texas, where the lowest cost means of generation wins out, energy storage largely remains too expensive. Still, battery projects are not unheard of; the power company AES Corp. and the transmission company Oncor launched one in Dallas to help regulate power.

“We definitely are at an acceleration point,” Jaffe said. “You’re starting to see project you wouldn’t call pilots anymore, big large projects.”

So far, energy storage has largely gravitated around lithium ion technology, the same form of battery used to power smartphones and laptops. Costs have come down fast as companies like Tesla and Panasonic refine the manufacturing process for use in cars and grid storage systems.

But as anyone with a smartphone knows, lithium ion’s lifespan is limited, with a steady loss of capacity as the years tick away. That might not be much of a problem for personal electronics or even cars, but power industry equipment is expected to last 20 years.

Instead, many scientists are turning towards what is known as flow battery technology, which stores energy by shifting electrical charges across liquids and is believed to have a lifespan of decades. Scientists at the federal Joint Center for Energy Storage Research have already committed to the technology for grid storage after spending more than three years exploring alternatives, Crabtree said.

“Everyone says batteries are at the place solar was 10 years ago,” he said. “As you know, the cost of solar has come down and the quality has gone up. Now they’re getting installed like mad.”

*In a decade, the combination of wind, solar, and geothermal will, on the basis of economics, put fossil fuel and nuclear plants out of business. The developing storage technology guarantees that.*


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> question : when all the oil has been burned when all the coal has been burned when all the gas has been burned when all the uranium has been used##
> 
> how do you compare a solarpanel to nothing ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me in 200 years when the oil has been used up.  Then you can come back 150 years after that for the coal, and then you can come back a couple of thousand years after that for the radioactives.
Click to expand...

Were we to burn all the oil, coal, and natural gas, won't be anybody getting back with anybody else. A P-T event will ensue.


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously think we want to drive this clown car
> 
> 
> View attachment 87869
> 
> 
> Instead of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're crazy
Click to expand...







For Koenigsegg, Lamborghini, and Bugatti, the afterglow of Pebble Beach weekendmay be fading a little faster than usual. That’s because each of those automakers have been shown up, just a little bit, by Tesla—which claims that the new Model S *P100D can get to 60 mph in a mere 2.5 seconds.*

The Model S P100D could be the quickest current regular-production car on the planet if the California automaker’s claims prove true. As Tesla concedes, the Porsche 918 Spyder and the LaFerrari were as quick or quicker, but they were limited-run vehicles, no longer made today and originally costing roughly $850,000 and $1.4 million.

True to its badging, the P100D will have a 100-kWh battery pack; Tesla says it’s good for a driving range of 315 miles, which makes it the longest-range production electric vehicle so far—and the first one from the automaker to go more than 300 miles on a charge.

It will be joined by a new Model X P100D that uses the same battery pack and can get to 60 mph in 2.9 seconds, with an EPA-rated driving range of 289 miles.

Tesla Says Model S P100D Is Quickest Production Car in the World, Longest-Range EV Yet

*What I would like to have, would be a real car that is comfortable to drive, and won't shake itself to pieces in 50,000 miles like the Hellcat. When the Tesla 3 comes out, I expect that there will soon be four wheel drive versions with bigger motors and larger battery capacity that will dust off the Hellcat and cost no more.

But you and the rest of the 'Conservatives' have to lie to yourselves and everyone else about an American car built here in America, that is the cutting edge of automotive technology.*


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn t it funny how "Conservatives" scream against energy subzidies for new technology and love subsidies for coal oil and nuclear ?
> 
> conservative means : keep pumping money into ME ! don t give money to them !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it funny how progressives ignore reality and love to pump money into technology's that don't work?  Here's the deal moron, the people that you like want the people of the world to spend 76 trillion dollars rebuilding the energy systems of this planet.  All in the hope that they can lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years.  That is asinine.  Through you and your fellow idiots, there will be less energy available at greater cost, and with MORE environmental damage than that which we already have.
> 
> Do you understand yet just how ridiculous you are yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I understand is that there are a lot old liars like you that cannot stand the future. Just get out of the way and let us get the job done. We don't need you people, and will ignore you as we build the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to enjoy the future.  Windmills are the PAST.  Silly people like you think they are somehow special because they like old technology.  Here's the deal, dude....it's old technology because it isn't as efficient as fossil fuels.  What would be a future technology would be a broadcast energy system like Tesla envisioned.  I'm all over that as that is truly a revolutionary technology.
> 
> Windmills aren't.
Click to expand...

Aren't what, silly ass? Texas is installing the windmills and solar by the gigawatt. And will continue to. And Oncor, the biggest utility in Texas is beginning to install grid scale batteries. And here in Oregon, we are doing the same on a smaller scale. Go ahead and live in the 19th century if that turns you on. Just don't expect us to follow you.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NOW -- you're forcing us back to horses.  Go figure.. Will reach a point where I prefer to take ole Charley into town than mess with those tiny "coal charged" electric carts.
> 
> There's no market for wind. You can't write a contract to provide XXX Megawatts on Tues afternoon. You don't run a Grid for the modern world on "Maybe Thurs for a couple hours"
> 
> And neither do you power any city on a summer night with Solar. When at 10PM the demand is 80% of what it was at NOON.  BEST deal for solar is to reduce that Noon peak by 10 or 15%.  That's it. That's all ya got. Except for Cuisanarts under the ocean to tear up sea life -- or Geothermal which is a dirty mining/fracking operation.
> 
> You can whine all ya want. That list of your "alternatives" are NOT alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mr. Flacaltenn, you are truly full of shit on this subject.*
> 
> https://www.innotap.com/2016/06/grid-scale-batteries-gain-ground-research-continues-seek-lower-cost/
> 
> In deregulated electricity markets like most of Texas, where the lowest cost means of generation wins out, energy storage largely remains too expensive. Still, battery projects are not unheard of; the power company AES Corp. and the transmission company Oncor launched one in Dallas to help regulate power.
> 
> “We definitely are at an acceleration point,” Jaffe said. “You’re starting to see project you wouldn’t call pilots anymore, big large projects.”
> 
> So far, energy storage has largely gravitated around lithium ion technology, the same form of battery used to power smartphones and laptops. Costs have come down fast as companies like Tesla and Panasonic refine the manufacturing process for use in cars and grid storage systems.
> 
> But as anyone with a smartphone knows, lithium ion’s lifespan is limited, with a steady loss of capacity as the years tick away. That might not be much of a problem for personal electronics or even cars, but power industry equipment is expected to last 20 years.
> 
> Instead, many scientists are turning towards what is known as flow battery technology, which stores energy by shifting electrical charges across liquids and is believed to have a lifespan of decades. Scientists at the federal Joint Center for Energy Storage Research have already committed to the technology for grid storage after spending more than three years exploring alternatives, Crabtree said.
> 
> “Everyone says batteries are at the place solar was 10 years ago,” he said. “As you know, the cost of solar has come down and the quality has gone up. Now they’re getting installed like mad.”
> 
> *In a decade, the combination of wind, solar, and geothermal will, on the basis of economics, put fossil fuel and nuclear plants out of business. The developing storage technology guarantees that.*
Click to expand...


Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours. 

Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> question : when all the oil has been burned when all the coal has been burned when all the gas has been burned when all the uranium has been used##
> 
> how do you compare a solarpanel to nothing ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me in 200 years when the oil has been used up.  Then you can come back 150 years after that for the coal, and then you can come back a couple of thousand years after that for the radioactives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were we to burn all the oil, coal, and natural gas, won't be anybody getting back with anybody else. A P-T event will ensue.
Click to expand...








Horsepoo.  The PETM was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day and it was a Garden of Eden.  Your extinction event bullshit, is just that, bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks

Two decades ago, we were told that the goal of solar for a dollar a watt was impossible. Now, they are installing 1.2 gigawatts of solar in Austin, Texas, for under 0.05 cents a watt. 

Now, I have been working in a steel mill for about 15 years. And it is powered by the Bonneville Dam with a direct line to that source. However, we have a division, heat treating, that is on the common grid. A 2 megawatt/hr battery would protect the electronics in that division from the bumps on the line that create such havoc with our PLCs and drives. Also, in case of a grid failure, dropped transformer, ice storm, whatever, we could roll out what is in the furnaces and take the mill down softly.

Now, there are many square miles of roofs in the city in the form of warehouse and commercial roofs. Perfect place for thin film solar. So the city could produce much of the power that it uses during the day,.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> question : when all the oil has been burned when all the coal has been burned when all the gas has been burned when all the uranium has been used##
> 
> how do you compare a solarpanel to nothing ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me in 200 years when the oil has been used up.  Then you can come back 150 years after that for the coal, and then you can come back a couple of thousand years after that for the radioactives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were we to burn all the oil, coal, and natural gas, won't be anybody getting back with anybody else. A P-T event will ensue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horsepoo.  The PETM was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day and it was a Garden of Eden.  Your extinction event bullshit, is just that, bullshit.
Click to expand...

Dumbshit, I said P-T, as in Permian-Triassic. And it was far from a Garden of Eden. About a 95% loss of all species.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> question : when all the oil has been burned when all the coal has been burned when all the gas has been burned when all the uranium has been used##
> 
> how do you compare a solarpanel to nothing ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me in 200 years when the oil has been used up.  Then you can come back 150 years after that for the coal, and then you can come back a couple of thousand years after that for the radioactives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were we to burn all the oil, coal, and natural gas, won't be anybody getting back with anybody else. A P-T event will ensue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horsepoo.  The PETM was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day and it was a Garden of Eden.  Your extinction event bullshit, is just that, bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbshit, I said P-T, as in Permian-Triassic. And it was far from a Garden of Eden. About a 95% loss of all species.
Click to expand...








Yes, and the most likely cause was COLD, dumbfuck.  Only you religious fanatics claim it was warmth.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Two decades ago, we were told that the goal of solar for a dollar a watt was impossible. Now, they are installing 1.2 gigawatts of solar in Austin, Texas, for under 0.05 cents a watt.
> 
> Now, I have been working in a steel mill for about 15 years. And it is powered by the Bonneville Dam with a direct line to that source. However, we have a division, heat treating, that is on the common grid. A 2 megawatt/hr battery would protect the electronics in that division from the bumps on the line that create such havoc with our PLCs and drives. Also, in case of a grid failure, dropped transformer, ice storm, whatever, we could roll out what is in the furnaces and take the mill down softly.
> 
> Now, there are many square miles of roofs in the city in the form of warehouse and commercial roofs. Perfect place for thin film solar. So the city could produce much of the power that it uses during the day,.








Oh gee, look at all the subsidies coming from non solar users to pay for those "low" rates. 

How Much Does Solar Cost in Austin, TX? | EnergySage


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two decades ago, we were told that the goal of solar for a dollar a watt was impossible. Now, they are installing 1.2 gigawatts of solar in Austin, Texas, for under 0.05 cents a watt.
> 
> Now, I have been working in a steel mill for about 15 years. And it is powered by the Bonneville Dam with a direct line to that source. However, we have a division, heat treating, that is on the common grid. A 2 megawatt/hr battery would protect the electronics in that division from the bumps on the line that create such havoc with our PLCs and drives. Also, in case of a grid failure, dropped transformer, ice storm, whatever, we could roll out what is in the furnaces and take the mill down softly.
> 
> Now, there are many square miles of roofs in the city in the form of warehouse and commercial roofs. Perfect place for thin film solar. So the city could produce much of the power that it uses during the day,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh gee, look at all the subsidies coming from none solar users to pay for those "low" rates.
> 
> How Much Does Solar Cost in Austin, TX? | EnergySage
Click to expand...

*Apples and oranges, old man. I was pointing out utility rate solar.,*

City of Austin gets 1.2GW of solar bids at less than 4c/kWh

Shalabi displayed the chart below showing an “exponentially declining curve” for PV projects in Texas.

“If you continue the curve, you can see that if the cost points continue along this sort of exponentially declining curve. We expect to see prices out in the future that are possibly below $20 a megawatt-hour,” he said. 




_Source: Austin Energy_

As part of a resource plan approved by city officials in 2014, Austin Energy must procure 55 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2025. The utility plans to build 600 megawatts of utility-scale solar projects in the next few years in order to meet the target.

*As the cost of solar continues to fall, and wind does the same, economics will drive there installation.*


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> question : when all the oil has been burned when all the coal has been burned when all the gas has been burned when all the uranium has been used##
> 
> how do you compare a solarpanel to nothing ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me in 200 years when the oil has been used up.  Then you can come back 150 years after that for the coal, and then you can come back a couple of thousand years after that for the radioactives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were we to burn all the oil, coal, and natural gas, won't be anybody getting back with anybody else. A P-T event will ensue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horsepoo.  The PETM was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day and it was a Garden of Eden.  Your extinction event bullshit, is just that, bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbshit, I said P-T, as in Permian-Triassic. And it was far from a Garden of Eden. About a 95% loss of all species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the most likely cause was COLD, dumbfuck.  Only you religious fanatics claim it was warmth.
Click to expand...

Cold and heat. Whiplash effect. Saw the same thing in the Younger Dryas on a smaller scale. Fast drop of 5 to 10 F, a decade to a century, extinctions of large mammals in North America. A thousand years later, a fast, decade to century, increase in temperature of the same magnitude, more extinctions of large mammals in North America. In fact, about 70% of the large mammals in North America went extinct during the Younger Dryas.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

hauke said:


> toddsterpatriot is a conglomerate of  diffrent bought people, hes not 1 person.
> 
> after reading enough of "his" its obviouse, toddsterpatriot is a construct from people who do propaganda



You've got counter data ?

Please provide it.

Otherwise, STFU.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> Two decades ago, we were told that the goal of solar for a dollar a watt was impossible. Now, they are installing 1.2 gigawatts of solar in Austin, Texas, for under 0.05 cents a watt.
> 
> Now, I have been working in a steel mill for about 15 years. And it is powered by the Bonneville Dam with a direct line to that source. However, we have a division, heat treating, that is on the common grid. A 2 megawatt/hr battery would protect the electronics in that division from the bumps on the line that create such havoc with our PLCs and drives. Also, in case of a grid failure, dropped transformer, ice storm, whatever, we could roll out what is in the furnaces and take the mill down softly.
> 
> Now, there are many square miles of roofs in the city in the form of warehouse and commercial roofs. Perfect place for thin film solar. So the city could produce much of the power that it uses during the day,.



You're confusing generation cost with installation cost on solar. Cannot believe EITHER figure unless you personally go over the books and see how they are cooked. Often the price of LAND is left out, or MAINTENANCE or Subsidies/Rebates not included. 

You 2 MW-hr "back-up" is nothing more than a big UPS. That's not unusual. And it doesn't have to carry the ENTIRE PLANT. You're confusing "grid scale storage" claims with SOLELY filling the HUGE gaps in service from renewables. 

In TRUTH GSStorage does MANY things,  sometimes simultaneously. Like frequency regulation, or switching on the grid or covering the start-up time of a back-up generator. VERY RARELY does GSStorage mean filling in for the sketchy and UNPREDICTABLE performance of renewables for gaps longer than 20 minutes or so. 

But they WANT to confuse the issue. Because it lifts the hearts of the faithful. Even Cali which has a GSS initiative is not planning for more than 1.8GW-hrs by 2030.. TOTAL -- on their grid. It's NOT for getting large grids thru the night or for consecutive days of bad wind performance. I don't know where you EVER got that idea.


----------



## flacaltenn

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two decades ago, we were told that the goal of solar for a dollar a watt was impossible. Now, they are installing 1.2 gigawatts of solar in Austin, Texas, for under 0.05 cents a watt.
> 
> Now, I have been working in a steel mill for about 15 years. And it is powered by the Bonneville Dam with a direct line to that source. However, we have a division, heat treating, that is on the common grid. A 2 megawatt/hr battery would protect the electronics in that division from the bumps on the line that create such havoc with our PLCs and drives. Also, in case of a grid failure, dropped transformer, ice storm, whatever, we could roll out what is in the furnaces and take the mill down softly.
> 
> Now, there are many square miles of roofs in the city in the form of warehouse and commercial roofs. Perfect place for thin film solar. So the city could produce much of the power that it uses during the day,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh gee, look at all the subsidies coming from none solar users to pay for those "low" rates.
> 
> How Much Does Solar Cost in Austin, TX? | EnergySage
Click to expand...


Holy crap.   What a bargain !!!


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get back to me in 200 years when the oil has been used up.  Then you can come back 150 years after that for the coal, and then you can come back a couple of thousand years after that for the radioactives.
> 
> 
> 
> Were we to burn all the oil, coal, and natural gas, won't be anybody getting back with anybody else. A P-T event will ensue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horsepoo.  The PETM was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day and it was a Garden of Eden.  Your extinction event bullshit, is just that, bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbshit, I said P-T, as in Permian-Triassic. And it was far from a Garden of Eden. About a 95% loss of all species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the most likely cause was COLD, dumbfuck.  Only you religious fanatics claim it was warmth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cold and heat. Whiplash effect. Saw the same thing in the Younger Dryas on a smaller scale. Fast drop of 5 to 10 F, a decade to a century, extinctions of large mammals in North America. A thousand years later, a fast, decade to century, increase in temperature of the same magnitude, more extinctions of large mammals in North America. In fact, about 70% of the large mammals in North America went extinct during the Younger Dryas.
Click to expand...








Like I said, horse poo.  There is ample evidence of a global ice age that lasted for who know's how long.  There is ZERO empirical evidence for warmth.  None, null, zero, zilch.  The only "evidence" for warmth is in those ridiculously bad computer models.  They have no basis in reality.


----------



## hauke

acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.

and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.

so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is

the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy

your just too fucked up to do it


----------



## Wry Catcher

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously think we want to drive this clown car
> 
> 
> View attachment 87869
> 
> 
> Instead of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're crazy
Click to expand...


Since I was 21, I've always driven a van, Chevy, Dodge, Plymouth and recently a 2006 Odyssey and now a 2016 Odyssey.  My fist car was a 1957, two door (210) Chevy Station Wagon which (gasp) my dad sold when I went on active duty.  Why  I surfed and Scuba Dove and needed the space to carry wet suits, boards and tanks the vans served as safari wagons on the CA Coast.  A place to change, sleep and carry water and supplies which my wife and I still use when we go camping to Yosemite, Tahoe, and up the Coast from SF to Vancouver Island, down the coast to San Diego and East to Scottsdale to watch some spring training baseball.

All of which is evidence your post is a straw man, made of wet straw and dressed in an asbestos clothing, thus unable to burn.


----------



## Wry Catcher

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NOW -- you're forcing us back to horses.  Go figure.. Will reach a point where I prefer to take ole Charley into town than mess with those tiny "coal charged" electric carts.
> 
> There's no market for wind. You can't write a contract to provide XXX Megawatts on Tues afternoon. You don't run a Grid for the modern world on "Maybe Thurs for a couple hours"
> 
> And neither do you power any city on a summer night with Solar. When at 10PM the demand is 80% of what it was at NOON.  BEST deal for solar is to reduce that Noon peak by 10 or 15%.  That's it. That's all ya got. Except for Cuisanarts under the ocean to tear up sea life -- or Geothermal which is a dirty mining/fracking operation.
> 
> You can whine all ya want. That list of your "alternatives" are NOT alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mr. Flacaltenn, you are truly full of shit on this subject.*
> 
> https://www.innotap.com/2016/06/grid-scale-batteries-gain-ground-research-continues-seek-lower-cost/
> 
> In deregulated electricity markets like most of Texas, where the lowest cost means of generation wins out, energy storage largely remains too expensive. Still, battery projects are not unheard of; the power company AES Corp. and the transmission company Oncor launched one in Dallas to help regulate power.
> 
> “We definitely are at an acceleration point,” Jaffe said. “You’re starting to see project you wouldn’t call pilots anymore, big large projects.”
> 
> So far, energy storage has largely gravitated around lithium ion technology, the same form of battery used to power smartphones and laptops. Costs have come down fast as companies like Tesla and Panasonic refine the manufacturing process for use in cars and grid storage systems.
> 
> But as anyone with a smartphone knows, lithium ion’s lifespan is limited, with a steady loss of capacity as the years tick away. That might not be much of a problem for personal electronics or even cars, but power industry equipment is expected to last 20 years.
> 
> Instead, many scientists are turning towards what is known as flow battery technology, which stores energy by shifting electrical charges across liquids and is believed to have a lifespan of decades. Scientists at the federal Joint Center for Energy Storage Research have already committed to the technology for grid storage after spending more than three years exploring alternatives, Crabtree said.
> 
> “Everyone says batteries are at the place solar was 10 years ago,” he said. “As you know, the cost of solar has come down and the quality has gone up. Now they’re getting installed like mad.”
> 
> *In a decade, the combination of wind, solar, and geothermal will, on the basis of economics, put fossil fuel and nuclear plants out of business. The developing storage technology guarantees that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours.
> 
> Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..
Click to expand...


Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:

Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic

Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).


----------



## Wyatt earp

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously think we want to drive this clown car
> 
> 
> View attachment 87869
> 
> 
> Instead of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I was 21, I've always driven a van, Chevy, Dodge, Plymouth and recently a 2006 Odyssey and now a 2016 Odyssey.  My fist car was a 1957, two door (210) Chevy Station Wagon which (gasp) my dad sold when I went on active duty.  Why  I surfed and Scuba Dove and needed the space to carry wet suits, boards and tanks the vans served as safari wagons on the CA Coast.  A place to change, sleep and carry water and supplies which my wife and I still use when we go camping to Yosemite, Tahoe, and up the Coast from SF to Vancouver Island, down the coast to San Diego and East to Scottsdale to watch some spring training baseball.
> 
> All of which is evidence your post is a straw man, made of wet straw and dressed in an asbestos clothing, thus unable to burn.
Click to expand...



A straw man???????


No one wants to drive piece of crap 125 year old technology electric cars.



.


----------



## Wry Catcher

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously think we want to drive this clown car
> 
> 
> View attachment 87869
> 
> 
> Instead of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I was 21, I've always driven a van, Chevy, Dodge, Plymouth and recently a 2006 Odyssey and now a 2016 Odyssey.  My fist car was a 1957, two door (210) Chevy Station Wagon which (gasp) my dad sold when I went on active duty.  Why  I surfed and Scuba Dove and needed the space to carry wet suits, boards and tanks the vans served as safari wagons on the CA Coast.  A place to change, sleep and carry water and supplies which my wife and I still use when we go camping to Yosemite, Tahoe, and up the Coast from SF to Vancouver Island, down the coast to San Diego and East to Scottsdale to watch some spring training baseball.
> 
> All of which is evidence your post is a straw man, made of wet straw and dressed in an asbestos clothing, thus unable to burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A straw man???????
> 
> 
> No one wants to drive piece of crap 125 year old technology electric cars.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Have you driven a Tesla?  Why do you claim to speak for everyone, do you think (LOL) you are all knowing (you're not). 

Have you even driven a golf cart, in use for decades? 

Were you so engrossed in Fox News you missed the flight of an electric solar powered Air Craft? 

Have you noticed solar panels on homes becoming more and more common?  Have you never flown a kite, sailed under wind power or tried to run into the wind?

Have you ever seen a windmill?

Do you know the difference between potential and kinetic energy?


Did you read this:

Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic


----------



## Wyatt earp

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously think we want to drive this clown car
> 
> 
> View attachment 87869
> 
> 
> Instead of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I was 21, I've always driven a van, Chevy, Dodge, Plymouth and recently a 2006 Odyssey and now a 2016 Odyssey.  My fist car was a 1957, two door (210) Chevy Station Wagon which (gasp) my dad sold when I went on active duty.  Why  I surfed and Scuba Dove and needed the space to carry wet suits, boards and tanks the vans served as safari wagons on the CA Coast.  A place to change, sleep and carry water and supplies which my wife and I still use when we go camping to Yosemite, Tahoe, and up the Coast from SF to Vancouver Island, down the coast to San Diego and East to Scottsdale to watch some spring training baseball.
> 
> All of which is evidence your post is a straw man, made of wet straw and dressed in an asbestos clothing, thus unable to burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A straw man???????
> 
> 
> No one wants to drive piece of crap 125 year old technology electric cars.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you driven a Tesla?  Why do you claim to speak for everyone, do you think (LOL) you are all knowing (you're not).
> 
> Have you even driven a golf cart, in use for decades?
> 
> Were you so engrossed in Fox News you missed the flight of an electric solar powered Air Craft?
> 
> Have you noticed solar panels on homes becoming more and more common?  Have you never flown a kite, sailed under wind power or tried to run into the wind?
> 
> Have you ever seen a windmill?
> 
> Do you know the difference between potential and kinetic energy?
> 
> 
> Did you read this:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
Click to expand...



What you mad that electric cars is almost 200 year old technology?



Feel the bear513 burn....


 Btw you think an electric could out preform a diesel one of these?


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it








You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NOW -- you're forcing us back to horses.  Go figure.. Will reach a point where I prefer to take ole Charley into town than mess with those tiny "coal charged" electric carts.
> 
> There's no market for wind. You can't write a contract to provide XXX Megawatts on Tues afternoon. You don't run a Grid for the modern world on "Maybe Thurs for a couple hours"
> 
> And neither do you power any city on a summer night with Solar. When at 10PM the demand is 80% of what it was at NOON.  BEST deal for solar is to reduce that Noon peak by 10 or 15%.  That's it. That's all ya got. Except for Cuisanarts under the ocean to tear up sea life -- or Geothermal which is a dirty mining/fracking operation.
> 
> You can whine all ya want. That list of your "alternatives" are NOT alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mr. Flacaltenn, you are truly full of shit on this subject.*
> 
> https://www.innotap.com/2016/06/grid-scale-batteries-gain-ground-research-continues-seek-lower-cost/
> 
> In deregulated electricity markets like most of Texas, where the lowest cost means of generation wins out, energy storage largely remains too expensive. Still, battery projects are not unheard of; the power company AES Corp. and the transmission company Oncor launched one in Dallas to help regulate power.
> 
> “We definitely are at an acceleration point,” Jaffe said. “You’re starting to see project you wouldn’t call pilots anymore, big large projects.”
> 
> So far, energy storage has largely gravitated around lithium ion technology, the same form of battery used to power smartphones and laptops. Costs have come down fast as companies like Tesla and Panasonic refine the manufacturing process for use in cars and grid storage systems.
> 
> But as anyone with a smartphone knows, lithium ion’s lifespan is limited, with a steady loss of capacity as the years tick away. That might not be much of a problem for personal electronics or even cars, but power industry equipment is expected to last 20 years.
> 
> Instead, many scientists are turning towards what is known as flow battery technology, which stores energy by shifting electrical charges across liquids and is believed to have a lifespan of decades. Scientists at the federal Joint Center for Energy Storage Research have already committed to the technology for grid storage after spending more than three years exploring alternatives, Crabtree said.
> 
> “Everyone says batteries are at the place solar was 10 years ago,” he said. “As you know, the cost of solar has come down and the quality has gone up. Now they’re getting installed like mad.”
> 
> *In a decade, the combination of wind, solar, and geothermal will, on the basis of economics, put fossil fuel and nuclear plants out of business. The developing storage technology guarantees that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours.
> 
> Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
Click to expand...






The problem that you have is you clearly don't know how to read.  This is the important part of your link.  I've colored and blown up the most important word.  What does that word "believes" mean to you?  This is what it means to me....they haven't even tried it yet.  Given where they are, they could have actually done a real, like you know...test.   Or something like that...but no, they "believe" it is something awesome.  This is the biggest problem that you green energy nitwits have.  Some guy can blow a bunch of smoke up your ass and you believe everything.  The only "green" energy system that actually works scaled up for industrial usage is hydro-electric.  Hydrothermal has a good chance to work, but it uses horror of horrors fracking to work.  You anti frackers probably have a conniption when that fact is pointed out to you.



"The technology would work best if the industry focuses on concentrated solar power (CSP). Using solar concentrators, high temperatures at a single location can be achieved fast and efficient. The team from MIST *believes that concentrated solar energy can be stored in the form of thermal energy only through the absorption qualities of the fine sand particles.*


----------



## flacaltenn

hauke said:


> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it



Really? we're into sunsets and sunrises to do this? You know anything about the efficiencies of transporting electricity 1000s of miles thru wires, transformers, and switching? 

This is the fairy princess approach to powering a formerly great country..


----------



## flacaltenn

Wry Catcher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And NOW -- you're forcing us back to horses.  Go figure.. Will reach a point where I prefer to take ole Charley into town than mess with those tiny "coal charged" electric carts.
> 
> There's no market for wind. You can't write a contract to provide XXX Megawatts on Tues afternoon. You don't run a Grid for the modern world on "Maybe Thurs for a couple hours"
> 
> And neither do you power any city on a summer night with Solar. When at 10PM the demand is 80% of what it was at NOON.  BEST deal for solar is to reduce that Noon peak by 10 or 15%.  That's it. That's all ya got. Except for Cuisanarts under the ocean to tear up sea life -- or Geothermal which is a dirty mining/fracking operation.
> 
> You can whine all ya want. That list of your "alternatives" are NOT alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mr. Flacaltenn, you are truly full of shit on this subject.*
> 
> https://www.innotap.com/2016/06/grid-scale-batteries-gain-ground-research-continues-seek-lower-cost/
> 
> In deregulated electricity markets like most of Texas, where the lowest cost means of generation wins out, energy storage largely remains too expensive. Still, battery projects are not unheard of; the power company AES Corp. and the transmission company Oncor launched one in Dallas to help regulate power.
> 
> “We definitely are at an acceleration point,” Jaffe said. “You’re starting to see project you wouldn’t call pilots anymore, big large projects.”
> 
> So far, energy storage has largely gravitated around lithium ion technology, the same form of battery used to power smartphones and laptops. Costs have come down fast as companies like Tesla and Panasonic refine the manufacturing process for use in cars and grid storage systems.
> 
> But as anyone with a smartphone knows, lithium ion’s lifespan is limited, with a steady loss of capacity as the years tick away. That might not be much of a problem for personal electronics or even cars, but power industry equipment is expected to last 20 years.
> 
> Instead, many scientists are turning towards what is known as flow battery technology, which stores energy by shifting electrical charges across liquids and is believed to have a lifespan of decades. Scientists at the federal Joint Center for Energy Storage Research have already committed to the technology for grid storage after spending more than three years exploring alternatives, Crabtree said.
> 
> “Everyone says batteries are at the place solar was 10 years ago,” he said. “As you know, the cost of solar has come down and the quality has gone up. Now they’re getting installed like mad.”
> 
> *In a decade, the combination of wind, solar, and geothermal will, on the basis of economics, put fossil fuel and nuclear plants out of business. The developing storage technology guarantees that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours.
> 
> Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
Click to expand...


Would be nice to see the environmental impact statement of making 100 acres of desert glow red for a few hours every day.. Wouldn't it?

*What you DON'T know* --- is that the CSP (concentrated solar or "death ray" technology) that would USE this approach is already failing to produce anywhere  close to modeling and estimates. There has a been a fair trial of this solar variant and the results are dismal. .Look up IvanPah for instance.  You HAVE NO excess to store in the sand --- if your actual generation is 40% of what folks paid for.. 


 And "sand storage" does NOT couple well with the majority of solar generation which is PV panels.  Wouldn't work to convert electricity to heat and back again.

So there you are ---- BARELY paying attention to the details, and telling tech folks like myself that I just need more childish OPTIMISM and HOPE. When YOU --- have no freakin' idea how any of this works or is related.


----------



## hauke

20 years ago i realized that cars that use gazoline or disel fuel are really bad for earth, i sold my car and for the last 20 years i haven t driven a car and the last time i used a plane was 13 years ago


----------



## hauke

flacaltenn said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? we're into sunsets and sunrises to do this? You know anything about the efficiencies of transporting electricity 1000s of miles thru wires, transformers, and switching?
> 
> This is the fairy princess approach to powering a formerly great country..
Click to expand...

theres a USA company which has developed superconducting wire for energy transmisson

this company is capable of producing intercontinental superconducting transmisson wires capable of transmiting electric energy across 10 000 km with 1% loss


----------



## hauke

maybe the USA should build a 21 century grid


----------



## flacaltenn

hauke said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? we're into sunsets and sunrises to do this? You know anything about the efficiencies of transporting electricity 1000s of miles thru wires, transformers, and switching?
> 
> This is the fairy princess approach to powering a formerly great country..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> theres a USA company which has developed superconducting wire for energy transmisson
> 
> this company is capable of producing intercontinental superconducting transmisson wires capable of transmiting electric energy across 10 000 km with 1% loss
Click to expand...


Anyone ACTUALLY TESTED 10,000 km with 1% loss? With all the other grid component gear IN PLACE??


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
Click to expand...


Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.

Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?


----------



## Wry Catcher

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And NOW -- you're forcing us back to horses.  Go figure.. Will reach a point where I prefer to take ole Charley into town than mess with those tiny "coal charged" electric carts.
> 
> There's no market for wind. You can't write a contract to provide XXX Megawatts on Tues afternoon. You don't run a Grid for the modern world on "Maybe Thurs for a couple hours"
> 
> And neither do you power any city on a summer night with Solar. When at 10PM the demand is 80% of what it was at NOON.  BEST deal for solar is to reduce that Noon peak by 10 or 15%.  That's it. That's all ya got. Except for Cuisanarts under the ocean to tear up sea life -- or Geothermal which is a dirty mining/fracking operation.
> 
> You can whine all ya want. That list of your "alternatives" are NOT alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mr. Flacaltenn, you are truly full of shit on this subject.*
> 
> https://www.innotap.com/2016/06/grid-scale-batteries-gain-ground-research-continues-seek-lower-cost/
> 
> In deregulated electricity markets like most of Texas, where the lowest cost means of generation wins out, energy storage largely remains too expensive. Still, battery projects are not unheard of; the power company AES Corp. and the transmission company Oncor launched one in Dallas to help regulate power.
> 
> “We definitely are at an acceleration point,” Jaffe said. “You’re starting to see project you wouldn’t call pilots anymore, big large projects.”
> 
> So far, energy storage has largely gravitated around lithium ion technology, the same form of battery used to power smartphones and laptops. Costs have come down fast as companies like Tesla and Panasonic refine the manufacturing process for use in cars and grid storage systems.
> 
> But as anyone with a smartphone knows, lithium ion’s lifespan is limited, with a steady loss of capacity as the years tick away. That might not be much of a problem for personal electronics or even cars, but power industry equipment is expected to last 20 years.
> 
> Instead, many scientists are turning towards what is known as flow battery technology, which stores energy by shifting electrical charges across liquids and is believed to have a lifespan of decades. Scientists at the federal Joint Center for Energy Storage Research have already committed to the technology for grid storage after spending more than three years exploring alternatives, Crabtree said.
> 
> “Everyone says batteries are at the place solar was 10 years ago,” he said. “As you know, the cost of solar has come down and the quality has gone up. Now they’re getting installed like mad.”
> 
> *In a decade, the combination of wind, solar, and geothermal will, on the basis of economics, put fossil fuel and nuclear plants out of business. The developing storage technology guarantees that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours.
> 
> Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see the environmental impact statement of making 100 acres of desert glow red for a few hours every day.. Wouldn't it?
> 
> *What you DON'T know* --- is that the CSP (concentrated solar or "death ray" technology) that would USE this approach is already failing to produce anywhere  close to modeling and estimates. There has a been a fair trial of this solar variant and the results are dismal. .Look up IvanPah for instance.  You HAVE NO excess to store in the sand --- if your actual generation is 40% of what folks paid for..
> 
> 
> And "sand storage" does NOT couple well with the majority of solar generation which is PV panels.  Wouldn't work to convert electricity to heat and back again.
> 
> So there you are ---- BARELY paying attention to the details, and telling tech folks like myself that I just need more childish OPTIMISM and HOPE. When YOU --- have no freakin' idea how any of this works or is related.
Click to expand...


How many efforts failed in the development of heavier than air vehicles?  How many rockets blew up on the launching pad before we went men to the moon?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
Click to expand...


*Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?*

Why does the Progressive Left continue to fear nuclear energy when it is clearly the best source of reliable CO2-free energy in useful amounts? Is it fear of change or ignorance?
It's our only hope to save the planet from killer warming, right?


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
Click to expand...






What does any of this blabber have to do with my question?  The problem you have dear child, is you have no clue what you are talking about.  None.  Ultra-High voltage DC which is used for long range transportation of energy is governed by this thing called "physics".   Technology allows us to that which physics dictates, we can't go beyond.  Thus, this mindless appeal the "technology" will save us, while true in many instances doesn't work in this case because physical laws are not changeable.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And NOW -- you're forcing us back to horses.  Go figure.. Will reach a point where I prefer to take ole Charley into town than mess with those tiny "coal charged" electric carts.
> 
> There's no market for wind. You can't write a contract to provide XXX Megawatts on Tues afternoon. You don't run a Grid for the modern world on "Maybe Thurs for a couple hours"
> 
> And neither do you power any city on a summer night with Solar. When at 10PM the demand is 80% of what it was at NOON.  BEST deal for solar is to reduce that Noon peak by 10 or 15%.  That's it. That's all ya got. Except for Cuisanarts under the ocean to tear up sea life -- or Geothermal which is a dirty mining/fracking operation.
> 
> You can whine all ya want. That list of your "alternatives" are NOT alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> *Mr. Flacaltenn, you are truly full of shit on this subject.*
> 
> https://www.innotap.com/2016/06/grid-scale-batteries-gain-ground-research-continues-seek-lower-cost/
> 
> In deregulated electricity markets like most of Texas, where the lowest cost means of generation wins out, energy storage largely remains too expensive. Still, battery projects are not unheard of; the power company AES Corp. and the transmission company Oncor launched one in Dallas to help regulate power.
> 
> “We definitely are at an acceleration point,” Jaffe said. “You’re starting to see project you wouldn’t call pilots anymore, big large projects.”
> 
> So far, energy storage has largely gravitated around lithium ion technology, the same form of battery used to power smartphones and laptops. Costs have come down fast as companies like Tesla and Panasonic refine the manufacturing process for use in cars and grid storage systems.
> 
> But as anyone with a smartphone knows, lithium ion’s lifespan is limited, with a steady loss of capacity as the years tick away. That might not be much of a problem for personal electronics or even cars, but power industry equipment is expected to last 20 years.
> 
> Instead, many scientists are turning towards what is known as flow battery technology, which stores energy by shifting electrical charges across liquids and is believed to have a lifespan of decades. Scientists at the federal Joint Center for Energy Storage Research have already committed to the technology for grid storage after spending more than three years exploring alternatives, Crabtree said.
> 
> “Everyone says batteries are at the place solar was 10 years ago,” he said. “As you know, the cost of solar has come down and the quality has gone up. Now they’re getting installed like mad.”
> 
> *In a decade, the combination of wind, solar, and geothermal will, on the basis of economics, put fossil fuel and nuclear plants out of business. The developing storage technology guarantees that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours.
> 
> Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see the environmental impact statement of making 100 acres of desert glow red for a few hours every day.. Wouldn't it?
> 
> *What you DON'T know* --- is that the CSP (concentrated solar or "death ray" technology) that would USE this approach is already failing to produce anywhere  close to modeling and estimates. There has a been a fair trial of this solar variant and the results are dismal. .Look up IvanPah for instance.  You HAVE NO excess to store in the sand --- if your actual generation is 40% of what folks paid for..
> 
> 
> And "sand storage" does NOT couple well with the majority of solar generation which is PV panels.  Wouldn't work to convert electricity to heat and back again.
> 
> So there you are ---- BARELY paying attention to the details, and telling tech folks like myself that I just need more childish OPTIMISM and HOPE. When YOU --- have no freakin' idea how any of this works or is related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many efforts failed in the development of heavier than air vehicles?  How many rockets blew up on the launching pad before we went men to the moon?
Click to expand...






All of which risked small numbers of people, and treasure.  You, on the other hand, wish to cast the whole world into a system wide failure.  Where energy is available 24/7 to only the very wealthy, and where the entirety of the population of the Earth is cast into poverty.  Yeppers, that's a real compelling argument you have there dude.


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> 20 years ago i realized that cars that use gazoline or disel fuel are really bad for earth, i sold my car and for the last 20 years i haven t driven a car and the last time i used a plane was 13 years ago







Thanks you for your sacrifice.  Leo Dicrapio is pleased that you are a martyr for his cause.  Now, get out of his way so he can jet off to some far away land to bed his latest conquest.


----------



## flacaltenn

Wry Catcher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And NOW -- you're forcing us back to horses.  Go figure.. Will reach a point where I prefer to take ole Charley into town than mess with those tiny "coal charged" electric carts.
> 
> There's no market for wind. You can't write a contract to provide XXX Megawatts on Tues afternoon. You don't run a Grid for the modern world on "Maybe Thurs for a couple hours"
> 
> And neither do you power any city on a summer night with Solar. When at 10PM the demand is 80% of what it was at NOON.  BEST deal for solar is to reduce that Noon peak by 10 or 15%.  That's it. That's all ya got. Except for Cuisanarts under the ocean to tear up sea life -- or Geothermal which is a dirty mining/fracking operation.
> 
> You can whine all ya want. That list of your "alternatives" are NOT alternatives.
> 
> 
> 
> *Mr. Flacaltenn, you are truly full of shit on this subject.*
> 
> https://www.innotap.com/2016/06/grid-scale-batteries-gain-ground-research-continues-seek-lower-cost/
> 
> In deregulated electricity markets like most of Texas, where the lowest cost means of generation wins out, energy storage largely remains too expensive. Still, battery projects are not unheard of; the power company AES Corp. and the transmission company Oncor launched one in Dallas to help regulate power.
> 
> “We definitely are at an acceleration point,” Jaffe said. “You’re starting to see project you wouldn’t call pilots anymore, big large projects.”
> 
> So far, energy storage has largely gravitated around lithium ion technology, the same form of battery used to power smartphones and laptops. Costs have come down fast as companies like Tesla and Panasonic refine the manufacturing process for use in cars and grid storage systems.
> 
> But as anyone with a smartphone knows, lithium ion’s lifespan is limited, with a steady loss of capacity as the years tick away. That might not be much of a problem for personal electronics or even cars, but power industry equipment is expected to last 20 years.
> 
> Instead, many scientists are turning towards what is known as flow battery technology, which stores energy by shifting electrical charges across liquids and is believed to have a lifespan of decades. Scientists at the federal Joint Center for Energy Storage Research have already committed to the technology for grid storage after spending more than three years exploring alternatives, Crabtree said.
> 
> “Everyone says batteries are at the place solar was 10 years ago,” he said. “As you know, the cost of solar has come down and the quality has gone up. Now they’re getting installed like mad.”
> 
> *In a decade, the combination of wind, solar, and geothermal will, on the basis of economics, put fossil fuel and nuclear plants out of business. The developing storage technology guarantees that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours.
> 
> Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see the environmental impact statement of making 100 acres of desert glow red for a few hours every day.. Wouldn't it?
> 
> *What you DON'T know* --- is that the CSP (concentrated solar or "death ray" technology) that would USE this approach is already failing to produce anywhere  close to modeling and estimates. There has a been a fair trial of this solar variant and the results are dismal. .Look up IvanPah for instance.  You HAVE NO excess to store in the sand --- if your actual generation is 40% of what folks paid for..
> 
> 
> And "sand storage" does NOT couple well with the majority of solar generation which is PV panels.  Wouldn't work to convert electricity to heat and back again.
> 
> So there you are ---- BARELY paying attention to the details, and telling tech folks like myself that I just need more childish OPTIMISM and HOPE. When YOU --- have no freakin' idea how any of this works or is related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many efforts failed in the development of heavier than air vehicles?  How many rockets blew up on the launching pad before we went men to the moon?
Click to expand...


Nawww..  We are WAY past those analogies with solar and wind. We have MUCH BETTER solar panels on the Mars Rovers. FAR superior to what's used for commercial power. WE KNOW how to make better panels. In this case -- you'd have to mine every ARSENIC resource on the planet to provide enough GA-Arsenside to produce them. And leftist enviros would PROBABLY excuse that. But even then -- the cost would 4 or 5 times more than Silicon panels. 

Rockets STILL  blow up on the pads. It's not a measure of tech development. And there are DETAILS to the tech that greenies have no clues about. Like making the sand glow for 4 hours a day. 

THere are no ALTERNATIVES on the list. Just a bunch of supplements. And we could push those supplements in BETTER DIRECTIONS --- than by forcing them to replace reliable 24/7/365 power generation. Things like renewable powered desalinization and hydrogen fuel production --- where the STORAGE is inherent in the process itself..


----------



## flacaltenn

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
Click to expand...


Nobody behind THIS keyboard is protecting Coal. I'd like to see most coal replaced by nuclear --- like tomorrow. And instead of finding ginormous additional  grid capacity for charging battery cars -- I'd like to see hydrogen fuel cells.. We're not the ones STUCK on stupid when it comes to alternatives.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?*
> 
> Why does the Progressive Left continue to fear nuclear energy when it is clearly the best source of reliable CO2-free energy in useful amounts? Is it fear of change or ignorance?
> It's our only hope to save the planet from killer warming, right?
Click to expand...


I don't fear nor do I oppose the new generation of nuclear reactors.  I do believe we have evolved, both technologically and experientially, since 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and the more recent crisis in Japan.  So don't pretend to know what all Democrats, all liberals or anyone else believes - you don't.

Now that I've put your non sequitur to rest, solar power has become common place on homes and office buildings, and battery technology has created electric and hybrid cars to go further while not being a slave to OPEC/Big OIL or polluting the environment with noise and noxious fumes.

Your global warming comment, also a non sequitur, exists; notwithstanding the efforts of the conservative propaganda.  People do have an impact on the earths climate and only stupid people are in denial of this FACT.  

What disturbs me the most is the crazy right wing pisses and moans about the nations fiscal debt, but gives not one second of thought to the condition their policies will leave the earth to our posterity.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mr. Flacaltenn, you are truly full of shit on this subject.*
> 
> https://www.innotap.com/2016/06/grid-scale-batteries-gain-ground-research-continues-seek-lower-cost/
> 
> In deregulated electricity markets like most of Texas, where the lowest cost means of generation wins out, energy storage largely remains too expensive. Still, battery projects are not unheard of; the power company AES Corp. and the transmission company Oncor launched one in Dallas to help regulate power.
> 
> “We definitely are at an acceleration point,” Jaffe said. “You’re starting to see project you wouldn’t call pilots anymore, big large projects.”
> 
> So far, energy storage has largely gravitated around lithium ion technology, the same form of battery used to power smartphones and laptops. Costs have come down fast as companies like Tesla and Panasonic refine the manufacturing process for use in cars and grid storage systems.
> 
> But as anyone with a smartphone knows, lithium ion’s lifespan is limited, with a steady loss of capacity as the years tick away. That might not be much of a problem for personal electronics or even cars, but power industry equipment is expected to last 20 years.
> 
> Instead, many scientists are turning towards what is known as flow battery technology, which stores energy by shifting electrical charges across liquids and is believed to have a lifespan of decades. Scientists at the federal Joint Center for Energy Storage Research have already committed to the technology for grid storage after spending more than three years exploring alternatives, Crabtree said.
> 
> “Everyone says batteries are at the place solar was 10 years ago,” he said. “As you know, the cost of solar has come down and the quality has gone up. Now they’re getting installed like mad.”
> 
> *In a decade, the combination of wind, solar, and geothermal will, on the basis of economics, put fossil fuel and nuclear plants out of business. The developing storage technology guarantees that.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours.
> 
> Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see the environmental impact statement of making 100 acres of desert glow red for a few hours every day.. Wouldn't it?
> 
> *What you DON'T know* --- is that the CSP (concentrated solar or "death ray" technology) that would USE this approach is already failing to produce anywhere  close to modeling and estimates. There has a been a fair trial of this solar variant and the results are dismal. .Look up IvanPah for instance.  You HAVE NO excess to store in the sand --- if your actual generation is 40% of what folks paid for..
> 
> 
> And "sand storage" does NOT couple well with the majority of solar generation which is PV panels.  Wouldn't work to convert electricity to heat and back again.
> 
> So there you are ---- BARELY paying attention to the details, and telling tech folks like myself that I just need more childish OPTIMISM and HOPE. When YOU --- have no freakin' idea how any of this works or is related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many efforts failed in the development of heavier than air vehicles?  How many rockets blew up on the launching pad before we went men to the moon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which risked small numbers of people, and treasure.  You, on the other hand, wish to cast the whole world into a system wide failure.  Where energy is available 24/7 to only the very wealthy, and where the entirety of the population of the Earth is cast into poverty.  Yeppers, that's a real compelling argument you have there dude.
Click to expand...


STRAW MAN ALERT!!!  

Next time don't use wet straw and don't dress the Scarecrow in Asbestos.


----------



## Wry Catcher

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody behind THIS keyboard is protecting Coal. I'd like to see most coal replaced by nuclear --- like tomorrow. And instead of finding ginormous additional  grid capacity for charging battery cars -- I'd like to see hydrogen fuel cells.. We're not the ones STUCK on stupid when it comes to alternatives.
Click to expand...


Progress requires many starts and stops, many failures before successes and an imaginative mind.  Breakthroughs can occur at odd times and in odd ways and your hope for hydrogen fuel cells is admirable but cannot become a reality without trial and error.  Baby steps will get us to where we need to be,  and the conservative bullshit does not help us in our efforts to get to the future.

We put men on the moon almost 50 years ago, and decided war was the best use of our nations resources; it's time we grow up!


----------



## flacaltenn

Wry Catcher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody behind THIS keyboard is protecting Coal. I'd like to see most coal replaced by nuclear --- like tomorrow. And instead of finding ginormous additional  grid capacity for charging battery cars -- I'd like to see hydrogen fuel cells.. We're not the ones STUCK on stupid when it comes to alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Progress requires many starts and stops, many failures before successes and an imaginative mind.  Breakthroughs can occur at odd times and in odd ways and your hope for hydrogen fuel cells is admirable but cannot become a reality without trial and error.  Baby steps will get us to where we need to be,  and the conservative bullshit does not help us in our efforts to get to the future.
> 
> We put men on the moon almost 50 years ago, and decided war was the best use of our nations resources; it's time we grow up!
Click to expand...


Do you know where the on-board power came from on the Apollo manned vehicles? Hydrogen fuel cells. It must be some kind of conspiracy by the oil companies as to why we're not driving one today --- Right? 

Ever hear of the European "hydrogen highway"? Or Scharzenegger's version of it in Cali? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/opinion/sunday/hydrogen-cars-coming-down-the-pike.html?_r=0

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hydrogen-may-prove-fuel-of-the-future/

Now THERE is an alternative with STILL a lot of room for tech innovation and development.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?*
> 
> Why does the Progressive Left continue to fear nuclear energy when it is clearly the best source of reliable CO2-free energy in useful amounts? Is it fear of change or ignorance?
> It's our only hope to save the planet from killer warming, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't fear nor do I oppose the new generation of nuclear reactors.  I do believe we have evolved, both technologically and experientially, since 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and the more recent crisis in Japan.  So don't pretend to know what all Democrats, all liberals or anyone else believes - you don't.
> 
> Now that I've put your non sequitur to rest, solar power has become common place on homes and office buildings, and battery technology has created electric and hybrid cars to go further while not being a slave to OPEC/Big OIL or polluting the environment with noise and noxious fumes.
> 
> Your global warming comment, also a non sequitur, exists; notwithstanding the efforts of the conservative propaganda.  People do have an impact on the earths climate and only stupid people are in denial of this FACT.
> 
> What disturbs me the most is the crazy right wing pisses and moans about the nations fiscal debt, but gives not one second of thought to the condition their policies will leave the earth to our posterity.
Click to expand...


*I don't fear nor do I oppose the new generation of nuclear reactors. I do believe we have evolved, both technologically and experientially, since 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and the more recent crisis in Japan.*

Excellent! Now all you have to do is convince the other 99% of warmer idiots and we'll have a point of agreement for clean energy.
Stop wasting taxpayer subsidies on these stupid windmills and solar panels.

*People do have an impact on the earths climate and only stupid people are in denial of this FACT.* 

Yup. And only stupid people prefer killing our economy to nuclear energy.


----------



## westwall

Wry Catcher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours.
> 
> Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see the environmental impact statement of making 100 acres of desert glow red for a few hours every day.. Wouldn't it?
> 
> *What you DON'T know* --- is that the CSP (concentrated solar or "death ray" technology) that would USE this approach is already failing to produce anywhere  close to modeling and estimates. There has a been a fair trial of this solar variant and the results are dismal. .Look up IvanPah for instance.  You HAVE NO excess to store in the sand --- if your actual generation is 40% of what folks paid for..
> 
> 
> And "sand storage" does NOT couple well with the majority of solar generation which is PV panels.  Wouldn't work to convert electricity to heat and back again.
> 
> So there you are ---- BARELY paying attention to the details, and telling tech folks like myself that I just need more childish OPTIMISM and HOPE. When YOU --- have no freakin' idea how any of this works or is related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many efforts failed in the development of heavier than air vehicles?  How many rockets blew up on the launching pad before we went men to the moon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which risked small numbers of people, and treasure.  You, on the other hand, wish to cast the whole world into a system wide failure.  Where energy is available 24/7 to only the very wealthy, and where the entirety of the population of the Earth is cast into poverty.  Yeppers, that's a real compelling argument you have there dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STRAW MAN ALERT!!!
> 
> Next time don't use wet straw and don't dress the Scarecrow in Asbestos.
Click to expand...







Straw man my ass.  Your entire argument is based on very flimsy straw men.  Get a clue.


----------



## Wry Catcher

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mr. Flacaltenn, you are truly full of shit on this subject.*
> 
> https://www.innotap.com/2016/06/grid-scale-batteries-gain-ground-research-continues-seek-lower-cost/
> 
> In deregulated electricity markets like most of Texas, where the lowest cost means of generation wins out, energy storage largely remains too expensive. Still, battery projects are not unheard of; the power company AES Corp. and the transmission company Oncor launched one in Dallas to help regulate power.
> 
> “We definitely are at an acceleration point,” Jaffe said. “You’re starting to see project you wouldn’t call pilots anymore, big large projects.”
> 
> So far, energy storage has largely gravitated around lithium ion technology, the same form of battery used to power smartphones and laptops. Costs have come down fast as companies like Tesla and Panasonic refine the manufacturing process for use in cars and grid storage systems.
> 
> But as anyone with a smartphone knows, lithium ion’s lifespan is limited, with a steady loss of capacity as the years tick away. That might not be much of a problem for personal electronics or even cars, but power industry equipment is expected to last 20 years.
> 
> Instead, many scientists are turning towards what is known as flow battery technology, which stores energy by shifting electrical charges across liquids and is believed to have a lifespan of decades. Scientists at the federal Joint Center for Energy Storage Research have already committed to the technology for grid storage after spending more than three years exploring alternatives, Crabtree said.
> 
> “Everyone says batteries are at the place solar was 10 years ago,” he said. “As you know, the cost of solar has come down and the quality has gone up. Now they’re getting installed like mad.”
> 
> *In a decade, the combination of wind, solar, and geothermal will, on the basis of economics, put fossil fuel and nuclear plants out of business. The developing storage technology guarantees that.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours.
> 
> Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see the environmental impact statement of making 100 acres of desert glow red for a few hours every day.. Wouldn't it?
> 
> *What you DON'T know* --- is that the CSP (concentrated solar or "death ray" technology) that would USE this approach is already failing to produce anywhere  close to modeling and estimates. There has a been a fair trial of this solar variant and the results are dismal. .Look up IvanPah for instance.  You HAVE NO excess to store in the sand --- if your actual generation is 40% of what folks paid for..
> 
> 
> And "sand storage" does NOT couple well with the majority of solar generation which is PV panels.  Wouldn't work to convert electricity to heat and back again.
> 
> So there you are ---- BARELY paying attention to the details, and telling tech folks like myself that I just need more childish OPTIMISM and HOPE. When YOU --- have no freakin' idea how any of this works or is related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many efforts failed in the development of heavier than air vehicles?  How many rockets blew up on the launching pad before we went men to the moon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nawww..  We are WAY past those analogies with solar and wind. We have MUCH BETTER solar panels on the Mars Rovers. FAR superior to what's used for commercial power. WE KNOW how to make better panels. In this case -- you'd have to mine every ARSENIC resource on the planet to provide enough GA-Arsenside to produce them. And leftist enviros would PROBABLY excuse that. But even then -- the cost would 4 or 5 times more than Silicon panels.
> 
> Rockets STILL  blow up on the pads. It's not a measure of tech development. And there are DETAILS to the tech that greenies have no clues about. Like making the sand glow for 4 hours a day.
> 
> THere are no ALTERNATIVES on the list. Just a bunch of supplements. And we could push those supplements in BETTER DIRECTIONS --- than by forcing them to replace reliable 24/7/365 power generation. Things like renewable powered desalinization and hydrogen fuel production --- where the STORAGE is inherent in the process itself..
Click to expand...


So, you're an expert (?) and yet solar and renewable energy exists, and is providing power throughout our nation.  Maybe you ought to spend some time educating all those engineers and entrepreneurs wasting their time and money - instead of playing the expert on the Internet.


----------



## Wry Catcher

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see the environmental impact statement of making 100 acres of desert glow red for a few hours every day.. Wouldn't it?
> 
> *What you DON'T know* --- is that the CSP (concentrated solar or "death ray" technology) that would USE this approach is already failing to produce anywhere  close to modeling and estimates. There has a been a fair trial of this solar variant and the results are dismal. .Look up IvanPah for instance.  You HAVE NO excess to store in the sand --- if your actual generation is 40% of what folks paid for..
> 
> 
> And "sand storage" does NOT couple well with the majority of solar generation which is PV panels.  Wouldn't work to convert electricity to heat and back again.
> 
> So there you are ---- BARELY paying attention to the details, and telling tech folks like myself that I just need more childish OPTIMISM and HOPE. When YOU --- have no freakin' idea how any of this works or is related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many efforts failed in the development of heavier than air vehicles?  How many rockets blew up on the launching pad before we went men to the moon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of which risked small numbers of people, and treasure.  You, on the other hand, wish to cast the whole world into a system wide failure.  Where energy is available 24/7 to only the very wealthy, and where the entirety of the population of the Earth is cast into poverty.  Yeppers, that's a real compelling argument you have there dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STRAW MAN ALERT!!!
> 
> Next time don't use wet straw and don't dress the Scarecrow in Asbestos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Straw man my ass.  Your entire argument is based on very flimsy straw men.  Get a clue.
Click to expand...


Maybe you ought to look up Straw Man and read about other logical fallacies.  This ^^^ response is childish, foolish and makes other posts you might choose to make less credible. You sure have a problem being criticized, a short fuse is the sign of emotional immaturity.


----------



## flacaltenn

Wry Catcher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not gonna happen,.. would be an enviro disaster if it did. You have no concept of what it takes to store DAYS of electricity when the wind don't blow. You can't power a steel mill from batteries for a day or a city of 40,000 for more than a couple hours.
> 
> Do the math. Do the economics.. You're listening to the dying gasps of an industry that has been overhyped and over-sold..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see the environmental impact statement of making 100 acres of desert glow red for a few hours every day.. Wouldn't it?
> 
> *What you DON'T know* --- is that the CSP (concentrated solar or "death ray" technology) that would USE this approach is already failing to produce anywhere  close to modeling and estimates. There has a been a fair trial of this solar variant and the results are dismal. .Look up IvanPah for instance.  You HAVE NO excess to store in the sand --- if your actual generation is 40% of what folks paid for..
> 
> 
> And "sand storage" does NOT couple well with the majority of solar generation which is PV panels.  Wouldn't work to convert electricity to heat and back again.
> 
> So there you are ---- BARELY paying attention to the details, and telling tech folks like myself that I just need more childish OPTIMISM and HOPE. When YOU --- have no freakin' idea how any of this works or is related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many efforts failed in the development of heavier than air vehicles?  How many rockets blew up on the launching pad before we went men to the moon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nawww..  We are WAY past those analogies with solar and wind. We have MUCH BETTER solar panels on the Mars Rovers. FAR superior to what's used for commercial power. WE KNOW how to make better panels. In this case -- you'd have to mine every ARSENIC resource on the planet to provide enough GA-Arsenside to produce them. And leftist enviros would PROBABLY excuse that. But even then -- the cost would 4 or 5 times more than Silicon panels.
> 
> Rockets STILL  blow up on the pads. It's not a measure of tech development. And there are DETAILS to the tech that greenies have no clues about. Like making the sand glow for 4 hours a day.
> 
> THere are no ALTERNATIVES on the list. Just a bunch of supplements. And we could push those supplements in BETTER DIRECTIONS --- than by forcing them to replace reliable 24/7/365 power generation. Things like renewable powered desalinization and hydrogen fuel production --- where the STORAGE is inherent in the process itself..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're an expert (?) and yet solar and renewable energy exists, and is providing power throughout our nation.  Maybe you ought to spend some time educating all those engineers and entrepreneurs wasting their time and money - instead of playing the expert on the Internet.
Click to expand...


I "exist" --- therefore I "am"..   Very deep !!!! LOL 
Lot of space between existing and being an "alternative" to anything..

We are wasting too much time and money right now on wind/solar and in general. There will always be a solar biz of SOME size, but it's not a major market.  Check out the 20 year solar ETFunds on the stock market -- don't listen to me.. Looks like a dead cat bounce.. 

Those engineers should be educating YOU..  On grid solar will never supply more than 3.5% of total grid energy -- and will only do that at mid-day peak and only in certain geographical areas.  It's what's called a "peaker" source. Where does that come from you ask? Simple.  Daytime summer PEAK on grid is about 20% higher than at 10PM at night. So allowing for safety margins it can cause a DISPLACEMENT of the PRIMARY generators for about 4 hours a day. 4/24 * 20% = 3.4% 

 Note that the PRIMARY capacity still has to BE THERE to back it up when the sun don't shine. Somebody's gonna pay for IDLING the primary source during that time and the inefficiencies of throttling it up and down. 

Wind is so entirely sketchy that if they took it off the massive Govt Nipple it would die tomorrow. That IS an entire waste of time and money when used ON GRID. There are uses for it OFF GRID.


----------



## Wry Catcher

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh those with no imagination and willful ignorance, in a word, conservative, ought to do some research before they broadcast foolishly.  See:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Keep in mind, the first cars need a crank to start (I hope that's not too abstract for the conservative set).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be nice to see the environmental impact statement of making 100 acres of desert glow red for a few hours every day.. Wouldn't it?
> 
> *What you DON'T know* --- is that the CSP (concentrated solar or "death ray" technology) that would USE this approach is already failing to produce anywhere  close to modeling and estimates. There has a been a fair trial of this solar variant and the results are dismal. .Look up IvanPah for instance.  You HAVE NO excess to store in the sand --- if your actual generation is 40% of what folks paid for..
> 
> 
> And "sand storage" does NOT couple well with the majority of solar generation which is PV panels.  Wouldn't work to convert electricity to heat and back again.
> 
> So there you are ---- BARELY paying attention to the details, and telling tech folks like myself that I just need more childish OPTIMISM and HOPE. When YOU --- have no freakin' idea how any of this works or is related.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many efforts failed in the development of heavier than air vehicles?  How many rockets blew up on the launching pad before we went men to the moon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nawww..  We are WAY past those analogies with solar and wind. We have MUCH BETTER solar panels on the Mars Rovers. FAR superior to what's used for commercial power. WE KNOW how to make better panels. In this case -- you'd have to mine every ARSENIC resource on the planet to provide enough GA-Arsenside to produce them. And leftist enviros would PROBABLY excuse that. But even then -- the cost would 4 or 5 times more than Silicon panels.
> 
> Rockets STILL  blow up on the pads. It's not a measure of tech development. And there are DETAILS to the tech that greenies have no clues about. Like making the sand glow for 4 hours a day.
> 
> THere are no ALTERNATIVES on the list. Just a bunch of supplements. And we could push those supplements in BETTER DIRECTIONS --- than by forcing them to replace reliable 24/7/365 power generation. Things like renewable powered desalinization and hydrogen fuel production --- where the STORAGE is inherent in the process itself..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're an expert (?) and yet solar and renewable energy exists, and is providing power throughout our nation.  Maybe you ought to spend some time educating all those engineers and entrepreneurs wasting their time and money - instead of playing the expert on the Internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I "exist" --- therefore I "am"..   Very deep !!!! LOL
> Lot of space between existing and being an "alternative" to anything..
> 
> We are wasting too much time and money right now on wind/solar and in general. There will always be a solar biz of SOME size, but it's not a major market.  Check out the 20 year solar ETFunds on the stock market -- don't listen to me.. Looks like a dead cat bounce..
> 
> Those engineers should be educating YOU..  On grid solar will never supply more than 3.5% of total grid energy -- and will only do that at mid-day peak and only in certain geographical areas.  It's what's called a "peaker" source. Where does that come from you ask? Simple.  Daytime summer PEAK on grid is about 20% higher than at 10PM at night. So allowing for safety margins it can cause a DISPLACEMENT of the PRIMARY generators for about 4 hours a day. 4/24 * 20% = 3.4%
> 
> Note that the PRIMARY capacity still has to BE THERE to back it up when the sun don't shine. Somebody's gonna pay for IDLING the primary source during that time and the inefficiencies of throttling it up and down.
> 
> Wind is so entirely sketchy that if they took it off the massive Govt Nipple it would die tomorrow. That IS an entire waste of time and money when used ON GRID. There are uses for it OFF GRID.
Click to expand...


Your mind is a steel trap, unable to consider anything which is beyond your belief system.  Why would I need natural gas or propane to heat water, if a black hose was filled and left in the hot sun for an hour?  Of course (duh) that could not be done at midnight, but during the day such a technology saves some fuel oil & NG. 

Wind is "sketchy", do you live in a cave?  Windmills and sail boats existed for centuries before we began to burn coal and oil.  Some areas of the country are always windy and some have over 300 days a year of sun.  Why limit our energy sources to two, when there are many?  Greed, ignorance or stubborn disregard for change!


----------



## Old Rocks

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two decades ago, we were told that the goal of solar for a dollar a watt was impossible. Now, they are installing 1.2 gigawatts of solar in Austin, Texas, for under 0.05 cents a watt.
> 
> Now, I have been working in a steel mill for about 15 years. And it is powered by the Bonneville Dam with a direct line to that source. However, we have a division, heat treating, that is on the common grid. A 2 megawatt/hr battery would protect the electronics in that division from the bumps on the line that create such havoc with our PLCs and drives. Also, in case of a grid failure, dropped transformer, ice storm, whatever, we could roll out what is in the furnaces and take the mill down softly.
> 
> Now, there are many square miles of roofs in the city in the form of warehouse and commercial roofs. Perfect place for thin film solar. So the city could produce much of the power that it uses during the day,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing generation cost with installation cost on solar. Cannot believe EITHER figure unless you personally go over the books and see how they are cooked. Often the price of LAND is left out, or MAINTENANCE or Subsidies/Rebates not included.
> 
> You 2 MW-hr "back-up" is nothing more than a big UPS. That's not unusual. And it doesn't have to carry the ENTIRE PLANT. You're confusing "grid scale storage" claims with SOLELY filling the HUGE gaps in service from renewables.
> 
> In TRUTH GSStorage does MANY things,  sometimes simultaneously. Like frequency regulation, or switching on the grid or covering the start-up time of a back-up generator. VERY RARELY does GSStorage mean filling in for the sketchy and UNPREDICTABLE performance of renewables for gaps longer than 20 minutes or so.
> 
> But they WANT to confuse the issue. Because it lifts the hearts of the faithful. Even Cali which has a GSS initiative is not planning for more than 1.8GW-hrs by 2030.. TOTAL -- on their grid. It's NOT for getting large grids thru the night or for consecutive days of bad wind performance. I don't know where you EVER got that idea.
Click to expand...

*Texas Utility Oncor Wants to Invest $5.2B in Storage: Can It Get Approval?*




Oncor is asking the Texas deregulated market to allow 5 gigawatts of utility-owned, distributed grid batteries.

Texas Utility Oncor Wants to Invest $5.2B in Storage: Can It Get Approval?

*Yes, by all means, let us try to head off the idea of making generation by renewables even more efficient. Luddites forever!*


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two decades ago, we were told that the goal of solar for a dollar a watt was impossible. Now, they are installing 1.2 gigawatts of solar in Austin, Texas, for under 0.05 cents a watt.
> 
> Now, I have been working in a steel mill for about 15 years. And it is powered by the Bonneville Dam with a direct line to that source. However, we have a division, heat treating, that is on the common grid. A 2 megawatt/hr battery would protect the electronics in that division from the bumps on the line that create such havoc with our PLCs and drives. Also, in case of a grid failure, dropped transformer, ice storm, whatever, we could roll out what is in the furnaces and take the mill down softly.
> 
> Now, there are many square miles of roofs in the city in the form of warehouse and commercial roofs. Perfect place for thin film solar. So the city could produce much of the power that it uses during the day,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing generation cost with installation cost on solar. Cannot believe EITHER figure unless you personally go over the books and see how they are cooked. Often the price of LAND is left out, or MAINTENANCE or Subsidies/Rebates not included.
> 
> You 2 MW-hr "back-up" is nothing more than a big UPS. That's not unusual. And it doesn't have to carry the ENTIRE PLANT. You're confusing "grid scale storage" claims with SOLELY filling the HUGE gaps in service from renewables.
> 
> In TRUTH GSStorage does MANY things,  sometimes simultaneously. Like frequency regulation, or switching on the grid or covering the start-up time of a back-up generator. VERY RARELY does GSStorage mean filling in for the sketchy and UNPREDICTABLE performance of renewables for gaps longer than 20 minutes or so.
> 
> But they WANT to confuse the issue. Because it lifts the hearts of the faithful. Even Cali which has a GSS initiative is not planning for more than 1.8GW-hrs by 2030.. TOTAL -- on their grid. It's NOT for getting large grids thru the night or for consecutive days of bad wind performance. I don't know where you EVER got that idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Texas Utility Oncor Wants to Invest $5.2B in Storage: Can It Get Approval?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oncor is asking the Texas deregulated market to allow 5 gigawatts of utility-owned, distributed grid batteries.
> 
> Texas Utility Oncor Wants to Invest $5.2B in Storage: Can It Get Approval?
> 
> *Yes, by all means, let us try to head off the idea of making generation by renewables even more efficient. Luddites forever!*
Click to expand...



Sounds damn expensive for a drop in the bucket to me.. 

How far ya willing to push that? When the subsidies end -- all that storage cost gets rolled up into the price of wind and solar. Setting YOU BACK about a decade or more  in cost performance and creating NEW and major enviro problems..  Great for miners and chemical companies tho..


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were we to burn all the oil, coal, and natural gas, won't be anybody getting back with anybody else. A P-T event will ensue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horsepoo.  The PETM was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day and it was a Garden of Eden.  Your extinction event bullshit, is just that, bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbshit, I said P-T, as in Permian-Triassic. And it was far from a Garden of Eden. About a 95% loss of all species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and the most likely cause was COLD, dumbfuck.  Only you religious fanatics claim it was warmth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cold and heat. Whiplash effect. Saw the same thing in the Younger Dryas on a smaller scale. Fast drop of 5 to 10 F, a decade to a century, extinctions of large mammals in North America. A thousand years later, a fast, decade to century, increase in temperature of the same magnitude, more extinctions of large mammals in North America. In fact, about 70% of the large mammals in North America went extinct during the Younger Dryas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, horse poo.  There is ample evidence of a global ice age that lasted for who know's how long.  There is ZERO empirical evidence for warmth.  None, null, zero, zilch.  The only "evidence" for warmth is in those ridiculously bad computer models.  They have no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

I see. So what you are saying is that we are still in the Younger Dryas? How interesting. If we are not, then obviously we warmed up at some point.


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet your great great grandpa saw the first horseless vehicle and yelled out, "get a horse".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously think we want to drive this clown car
> 
> 
> View attachment 87869
> 
> 
> Instead of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're crazy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since I was 21, I've always driven a van, Chevy, Dodge, Plymouth and recently a 2006 Odyssey and now a 2016 Odyssey.  My fist car was a 1957, two door (210) Chevy Station Wagon which (gasp) my dad sold when I went on active duty.  Why  I surfed and Scuba Dove and needed the space to carry wet suits, boards and tanks the vans served as safari wagons on the CA Coast.  A place to change, sleep and carry water and supplies which my wife and I still use when we go camping to Yosemite, Tahoe, and up the Coast from SF to Vancouver Island, down the coast to San Diego and East to Scottsdale to watch some spring training baseball.
> 
> All of which is evidence your post is a straw man, made of wet straw and dressed in an asbestos clothing, thus unable to burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A straw man???????
> 
> 
> No one wants to drive piece of crap 125 year old technology electric cars.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you driven a Tesla?  Why do you claim to speak for everyone, do you think (LOL) you are all knowing (you're not).
> 
> Have you even driven a golf cart, in use for decades?
> 
> Were you so engrossed in Fox News you missed the flight of an electric solar powered Air Craft?
> 
> Have you noticed solar panels on homes becoming more and more common?  Have you never flown a kite, sailed under wind power or tried to run into the wind?
> 
> Have you ever seen a windmill?
> 
> Do you know the difference between potential and kinetic energy?
> 
> 
> Did you read this:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you mad that electric cars is almost 200 year old technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Feel the bear513 burn....
> 
> 
> Btw you think an electric could out preform a diesel one of these?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 88015
Click to expand...

Absolutely. An electric motor has the most torque at 0 rpm. As soon as the batteries get the energy density to that of liquid fuel. When that occurs, at an affordable price, the diesel engine will go the way of the horse.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
Click to expand...

LOL Damn, so we don't have the technology to step up voltage? It will take the same amount of time to charge a Tesla with solar energy as with coal, hydro, wind, natural gas, or nuclear. God, you are getting as stupid as LaDumbkopf.


----------



## Old Rocks

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two decades ago, we were told that the goal of solar for a dollar a watt was impossible. Now, they are installing 1.2 gigawatts of solar in Austin, Texas, for under 0.05 cents a watt.
> 
> Now, I have been working in a steel mill for about 15 years. And it is powered by the Bonneville Dam with a direct line to that source. However, we have a division, heat treating, that is on the common grid. A 2 megawatt/hr battery would protect the electronics in that division from the bumps on the line that create such havoc with our PLCs and drives. Also, in case of a grid failure, dropped transformer, ice storm, whatever, we could roll out what is in the furnaces and take the mill down softly.
> 
> Now, there are many square miles of roofs in the city in the form of warehouse and commercial roofs. Perfect place for thin film solar. So the city could produce much of the power that it uses during the day,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing generation cost with installation cost on solar. Cannot believe EITHER figure unless you personally go over the books and see how they are cooked. Often the price of LAND is left out, or MAINTENANCE or Subsidies/Rebates not included.
> 
> You 2 MW-hr "back-up" is nothing more than a big UPS. That's not unusual. And it doesn't have to carry the ENTIRE PLANT. You're confusing "grid scale storage" claims with SOLELY filling the HUGE gaps in service from renewables.
> 
> In TRUTH GSStorage does MANY things,  sometimes simultaneously. Like frequency regulation, or switching on the grid or covering the start-up time of a back-up generator. VERY RARELY does GSStorage mean filling in for the sketchy and UNPREDICTABLE performance of renewables for gaps longer than 20 minutes or so.
> 
> But they WANT to confuse the issue. Because it lifts the hearts of the faithful. Even Cali which has a GSS initiative is not planning for more than 1.8GW-hrs by 2030.. TOTAL -- on their grid. It's NOT for getting large grids thru the night or for consecutive days of bad wind performance. I don't know where you EVER got that idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Texas Utility Oncor Wants to Invest $5.2B in Storage: Can It Get Approval?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oncor is asking the Texas deregulated market to allow 5 gigawatts of utility-owned, distributed grid batteries.
> 
> Texas Utility Oncor Wants to Invest $5.2B in Storage: Can It Get Approval?
> 
> *Yes, by all means, let us try to head off the idea of making generation by renewables even more efficient. Luddites forever!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds damn expensive for a drop in the bucket to me..
> 
> How far ya willing to push that? When the subsidies end -- all that storage cost gets rolled up into the price of wind and solar. Setting YOU BACK about a decade or more  in cost performance and creating NEW and major enviro problems..  Great for miners and chemical companies tho..
Click to expand...

*And the engineers at Oncor totally disagree with you.*

Oncor proposes giant leap for grid, batteries

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

Ranging from refrigerator- to dumpster-size, the batteries would be installed behind shopping centers and in neighborhoods. Statewide, Oncor estimates a total price tag of $5.2 billion. A study commissioned by Oncor with the Brattle Group, a Massachusetts consulting firm that provides power market analysis for state regulators, says the project would not raise bills. Revenue from rental of storage space on the batteries, along with a decrease in power prices and transmission costs, should actually decrease the average Texas residential power bill 34 cents to $179.66 a month, the report said.


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?*
> 
> Why does the Progressive Left continue to fear nuclear energy when it is clearly the best source of reliable CO2-free energy in useful amounts? Is it fear of change or ignorance?
> It's our only hope to save the planet from killer warming, right?
Click to expand...

Because I don't like to pay $2 for what I can get from equally reliable and clean sources for $0.50. And the problem of waste is still with us.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two decades ago, we were told that the goal of solar for a dollar a watt was impossible. Now, they are installing 1.2 gigawatts of solar in Austin, Texas, for under 0.05 cents a watt.
> 
> Now, I have been working in a steel mill for about 15 years. And it is powered by the Bonneville Dam with a direct line to that source. However, we have a division, heat treating, that is on the common grid. A 2 megawatt/hr battery would protect the electronics in that division from the bumps on the line that create such havoc with our PLCs and drives. Also, in case of a grid failure, dropped transformer, ice storm, whatever, we could roll out what is in the furnaces and take the mill down softly.
> 
> Now, there are many square miles of roofs in the city in the form of warehouse and commercial roofs. Perfect place for thin film solar. So the city could produce much of the power that it uses during the day,.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing generation cost with installation cost on solar. Cannot believe EITHER figure unless you personally go over the books and see how they are cooked. Often the price of LAND is left out, or MAINTENANCE or Subsidies/Rebates not included.
> 
> You 2 MW-hr "back-up" is nothing more than a big UPS. That's not unusual. And it doesn't have to carry the ENTIRE PLANT. You're confusing "grid scale storage" claims with SOLELY filling the HUGE gaps in service from renewables.
> 
> In TRUTH GSStorage does MANY things,  sometimes simultaneously. Like frequency regulation, or switching on the grid or covering the start-up time of a back-up generator. VERY RARELY does GSStorage mean filling in for the sketchy and UNPREDICTABLE performance of renewables for gaps longer than 20 minutes or so.
> 
> But they WANT to confuse the issue. Because it lifts the hearts of the faithful. Even Cali which has a GSS initiative is not planning for more than 1.8GW-hrs by 2030.. TOTAL -- on their grid. It's NOT for getting large grids thru the night or for consecutive days of bad wind performance. I don't know where you EVER got that idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Texas Utility Oncor Wants to Invest $5.2B in Storage: Can It Get Approval?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oncor is asking the Texas deregulated market to allow 5 gigawatts of utility-owned, distributed grid batteries.
> 
> Texas Utility Oncor Wants to Invest $5.2B in Storage: Can It Get Approval?
> 
> *Yes, by all means, let us try to head off the idea of making generation by renewables even more efficient. Luddites forever!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds damn expensive for a drop in the bucket to me..
> 
> How far ya willing to push that? When the subsidies end -- all that storage cost gets rolled up into the price of wind and solar. Setting YOU BACK about a decade or more  in cost performance and creating NEW and major enviro problems..  Great for miners and chemical companies tho..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And the engineers at Oncor totally disagree with you.*
> 
> Oncor proposes giant leap for grid, batteries
> 
> The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.
> 
> Ranging from refrigerator- to dumpster-size, the batteries would be installed behind shopping centers and in neighborhoods. Statewide, Oncor estimates a total price tag of $5.2 billion. A study commissioned by Oncor with the Brattle Group, a Massachusetts consulting firm that provides power market analysis for state regulators, says the project would not raise bills. Revenue from rental of storage space on the batteries, along with a decrease in power prices and transmission costs, should actually decrease the average Texas residential power bill 34 cents to $179.66 a month, the report said.
Click to expand...


Where the fuck is this magical "revenue from rental of storage space on the batteries" coming from? Who's pocket do you think THAT is?  It's a shakedown. Shopping center gets tired of tired of black-outs caused by an over-purchase of flaky wind generation --- officials tell them --- "well it would be a crying shame if sumtin were to happen to your frozen food section".  So we could "protect it" by parking a big ass trailer in your lot and watchin it for ya.  Just "rent it" from us..


----------



## Wyatt earp

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seriously think we want to drive this clown car
> 
> 
> View attachment 87869
> 
> 
> Instead of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're crazy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I was 21, I've always driven a van, Chevy, Dodge, Plymouth and recently a 2006 Odyssey and now a 2016 Odyssey.  My fist car was a 1957, two door (210) Chevy Station Wagon which (gasp) my dad sold when I went on active duty.  Why  I surfed and Scuba Dove and needed the space to carry wet suits, boards and tanks the vans served as safari wagons on the CA Coast.  A place to change, sleep and carry water and supplies which my wife and I still use when we go camping to Yosemite, Tahoe, and up the Coast from SF to Vancouver Island, down the coast to San Diego and East to Scottsdale to watch some spring training baseball.
> 
> All of which is evidence your post is a straw man, made of wet straw and dressed in an asbestos clothing, thus unable to burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A straw man???????
> 
> 
> No one wants to drive piece of crap 125 year old technology electric cars.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you driven a Tesla?  Why do you claim to speak for everyone, do you think (LOL) you are all knowing (you're not).
> 
> Have you even driven a golf cart, in use for decades?
> 
> Were you so engrossed in Fox News you missed the flight of an electric solar powered Air Craft?
> 
> Have you noticed solar panels on homes becoming more and more common?  Have you never flown a kite, sailed under wind power or tried to run into the wind?
> 
> Have you ever seen a windmill?
> 
> Do you know the difference between potential and kinetic energy?
> 
> 
> Did you read this:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you mad that electric cars is almost 200 year old technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Feel the bear513 burn....
> 
> 
> Btw you think an electric could out preform a diesel one of these?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 88015
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. An electric motor has the most torque at 0 rpm. As soon as the batteries get the energy density to that of liquid fuel. When that occurs, at an affordable price, the diesel engine will go the way of the horse.
Click to expand...



I do enjoy old rocks you keeping me personally informed of green energy new developments.


But dude electricity is not a fuel.

Yea we have known for over 150 years the electric motor is far superior to the internal combustion engine.. With torque 

But their is a reason for diesel electric trains..


The diesel supply the fuel..the electric supply the torque.


----------



## Old Rocks

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody behind THIS keyboard is protecting Coal. I'd like to see most coal replaced by nuclear --- like tomorrow. And instead of finding ginormous additional  grid capacity for charging battery cars -- I'd like to see hydrogen fuel cells.. We're not the ones STUCK on stupid when it comes to alternatives.
Click to expand...

Fine, engineer. Develop a usable fuel cell car at the price, and usability of the present EV's. Until you do that, don't lecture me on there superiority.


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody behind THIS keyboard is protecting Coal. I'd like to see most coal replaced by nuclear --- like tomorrow. And instead of finding ginormous additional  grid capacity for charging battery cars -- I'd like to see hydrogen fuel cells.. We're not the ones STUCK on stupid when it comes to alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine, engineer. Develop a usable fuel cell car at the price, and usability of the present EV's. Until you do that, don't lecture me on there superiority.
Click to expand...


I've been telling ya what's gonna happen. When the wind bubble bursts because people depending on the Grid start dying --- There's gonna be a flight to finding the RIGHT applications for renewables. 

And 2 of those are OFF GRID desalinization and OFF GRID hydrogen production... 

Who wouldn't want to buy into a piece of an energy company whose major requirements were WATER and wind and sunlight? Every cubic meter of hydrogen produced would eventually have a higher profit margin on it than gasoline. Now THAT'S engineering..


----------



## Old Rocks

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I was 21, I've always driven a van, Chevy, Dodge, Plymouth and recently a 2006 Odyssey and now a 2016 Odyssey.  My fist car was a 1957, two door (210) Chevy Station Wagon which (gasp) my dad sold when I went on active duty.  Why  I surfed and Scuba Dove and needed the space to carry wet suits, boards and tanks the vans served as safari wagons on the CA Coast.  A place to change, sleep and carry water and supplies which my wife and I still use when we go camping to Yosemite, Tahoe, and up the Coast from SF to Vancouver Island, down the coast to San Diego and East to Scottsdale to watch some spring training baseball.
> 
> All of which is evidence your post is a straw man, made of wet straw and dressed in an asbestos clothing, thus unable to burn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A straw man???????
> 
> 
> No one wants to drive piece of crap 125 year old technology electric cars.
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you driven a Tesla?  Why do you claim to speak for everyone, do you think (LOL) you are all knowing (you're not).
> 
> Have you even driven a golf cart, in use for decades?
> 
> Were you so engrossed in Fox News you missed the flight of an electric solar powered Air Craft?
> 
> Have you noticed solar panels on homes becoming more and more common?  Have you never flown a kite, sailed under wind power or tried to run into the wind?
> 
> Have you ever seen a windmill?
> 
> Do you know the difference between potential and kinetic energy?
> 
> 
> Did you read this:
> 
> Scientists Store Solar Energy in Desert Sand - The Green Optimistic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What you mad that electric cars is almost 200 year old technology?
> 
> 
> 
> Feel the bear513 burn....
> 
> 
> Btw you think an electric could out preform a diesel one of these?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 88015
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely. An electric motor has the most torque at 0 rpm. As soon as the batteries get the energy density to that of liquid fuel. When that occurs, at an affordable price, the diesel engine will go the way of the horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do enjoy old rocks you keeping me personally informed of green energy new developments.
> 
> 
> But dude electricity is not a fuel.
> 
> Yea we have known for over 150 years the electric motor is far superior to the internal combustion engine.. With torque
> 
> But their is a reason for diesel electric trains..
> 
> 
> The diesel supply the fuel..the electric supply the torque.
Click to expand...

But the equipment in your post was either a very large lift or a piece of earth moving equipment. How many of those are diesel electric?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> acctually the usa is big enough that when the sun sets in california it rises in new foundland.
> 
> and somewhere on the continental USA the wind blows.
> 
> so anyone who thinks that theres not enough USA to make " Green", id say "American" energy possible is a moron who does not understand how big how great the USA is
> 
> the USA would not have a problem to maintain a level of energy use  10 times greater then today with sustainable energy
> 
> your just too fucked up to do it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about.  Energy transmission across vast distances requires extremely high voltages to do.  Voltages you don't get from wind or solar.  Might I suggest you actually learn about what you're spewing.  Here's a homework problem for you.  How long would it take to recharge a Tesla using just solar power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today or tomorrow?  Remember the first bicycle, the one with the huge front wheel?  Evolution is not restricted to biology, it is ever present in technology (remember the Commodore 64?).  We see Tesla and Volt (Chevy) cars, and hybrid cars galore on our highways in CA.  My wife drives a Prius which is nearly as common in the Bay Area as the VW Bug was in the 1960's.
> 
> Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?   Job security, fear of change or ignorance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why does the New Right seek to protect Coal and Oil / NG and claim it to be superior to any every other source of energy?*
> 
> Why does the Progressive Left continue to fear nuclear energy when it is clearly the best source of reliable CO2-free energy in useful amounts? Is it fear of change or ignorance?
> It's our only hope to save the planet from killer warming, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't like to pay $2 for what I can get from equally reliable and clean sources for $0.50. And the problem of waste is still with us.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that reliable energy that only gets generated, what, a third of the time? LOL!


----------



## P@triot

This is how _insanely_ stupid progressives are - they want to rid the world of the CO2 plants require to thrive, in order to "save" plant life. You just can't make this stuff up...


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> This is how _insanely_ stupid progressives are - they want to rid the world of the CO2 plants require to thrive, in order to "save" plant life. You just can't make this stuff up...


What cannot be made up is how fucking stupid you are. Please post a link to where the scientists want to rid the world of CO2? You dumb bastard, if you researched anything at all about what scientists have to say about CO2, you would find that they state that CO2 is essential in the atmosphere not only for plant life, but as a GHG, to keep the oceans from freezing clear down to the equator. In fact, if you would like to lessen your vast ignorance a little, you might look up snowball earth.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how _insanely_ stupid progressives are - they want to rid the world of the CO2 plants require to thrive, in order to "save" plant life. You just can't make this stuff up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cannot be made up is how fucking stupid you are. Please post a link to where the scientists want to rid the world of CO2? You dumb bastard, if you researched anything at all about what scientists have to say about CO2, you would find that they state that CO2 is essential in the atmosphere not only for plant life, but as a GHG, to keep the oceans from freezing clear down to the equator. In fact, if you would like to lessen your vast ignorance a little, you might look up snowball earth.
Click to expand...





Really?  Please provide a link to them making such a statement.


----------



## hauke

electricity is a fuel, like gasoline it makes motors go

but unlike gasoline or oil its not a liquid


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> electricity is a fuel, like gasoline it makes motors go
> 
> but unlike gasoline or oil its not a liquid








Do you have a point?


----------



## hauke

yes gasoline and electricity are equal


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> yes gasoline and electricity are equal








Not really.  The primary source of electricity are fixed point generators that produce enormous amounts of energy for a comparatively small amount of pollution.


----------



## mamooth

And as people talk, discovery of new oil keeps declining, not even coming close to keeping pace with oil consumption.

https://aspoireland.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/newsletter100_200904.pdf






For the logically-challenged, let me explain what that means. The oil eventually runs out. Non-conventional oil and natgas take up some slack, but they're finite as well, and it's not possible for any finite resource to last infinitely. It doesn't run out all at once, but petroleum products will gradually get scarcer and more expensive. In ten years, we'll be paying $10/gallon for gasoline, and people will be screaming bloody murder about the lack of alternatives.

Hate "green energy" all you want, but there's no other choice. It's either a green and nuclear combo, or it's life without electricity. And being vehicles can't run on nuclear, it's either electric vehicles or no vehicles. We environmentalists like electricity, so we would rather have alternate sources in place before the crisis occurs. That's a philosophy that the green energy haters don't seem to share.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> And as people talk, discovery of new oil keeps declining, not even coming close to keeping pace with oil consumption.
> 
> https://aspoireland.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/newsletter100_200904.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the logically-challenged, let me explain what that means. The oil eventually runs out. Non-conventional oil and natgas take up some slack, but they're finite as well, and it's not possible for any finite resource to last infinitely. It doesn't run out all at once, but petroleum products will gradually get scarcer and more expensive. In ten years, we'll be paying $10/gallon for gasoline, and people will be screaming bloody murder about the lack of alternatives.
> 
> Hate "green energy" all you want, but there's no other choice. It's either a green and nuclear combo, or it's life without electricity. And being vehicles can't run on nuclear, it's either electric vehicles or no vehicles. We environmentalists like electricity, so we would rather have alternate sources in place before the crisis occurs. That's a philosophy that the green energy haters don't seem to share.







Oh goody!  Yet another "peak oiler" rears his silly head!  So...how many times have you all claimed that we're going to be running out of oil........."REAL SOON!"


----------



## mamooth

I never said so. And anyone with common sense understands peak oil is real. It's not possible to make a finite resource last infinitely. Do you disagree with that statement?

Oh wait. Weren't you a believer in the abiotic oil fantasy?  I suppose invoking wacky pseudoscience is one way to get around basic logic. Just wave your hands around, and pretend resources are infinite.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> I never said so. And anyone with common sense understands peak oil is real. It's not possible to make a finite resource last infinitely. Do you disagree with that statement?
> 
> Oh wait. Weren't you a believer in the abiotic oil fantasy?  I suppose invoking wacky pseudoscience is one way to get around basic logic. Just wave your hands around, and pretend resources are infinite.


Do you think oil was placed here by aliens and it's about to run out? 

The earth _makes_ oil, genius. Just like it makes diamonds, natural gas, etc.

In fact - not mining these resources puts the earth in very grave danger. Earthquakes release massive amounts of oil (especially under the ocean floor and into the ocean) and natural gas explodes if it reaches a heat source (say....a volcano). We desperately need to mine these resources and use them all up as the earth continues to produce them.

But...since I'm talking to a progressive....all of this will fall on deaf ears as it doesn't fall in line with the left-wing propaganda.


----------



## mamooth

P@triot said:


> In fact - not mining these resources puts the earth in very grave danger. Earthquakes release massive amounts of oil (especially under the ocean floor and into the ocean) and natural gas explodes if it reaches a heat source (say....a volcano). We desperately need to mine these resources and use them all up as the earth continues to produce them.



I'm pretty certain that will be the single dumbest thing I read on the internet today.

I do hand it to you. That was impressive in the sheer magnitude of its wrongness.The part about natural gas exploding when it reached a volcano was an original bit of stupidity that I hadn't seen before. So, at least you get points for creativity.

Now, if you need some help understanding the dumbess of your paragraph, let me give you some starting ponts.

Learn about the rate of formation of fossil fuels. Yes, earth is "creating" them, but on a scale of millions of years. Hence, it's dumb to declare earth keeps creating vast new quantities of htem right now.

Also learn where fossil fuels are found. The answer is "sedimentary formations". That is, not near volcanoes.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact - not mining these resources puts the earth in very grave danger. Earthquakes release massive amounts of oil (especially under the ocean floor and into the ocean) and natural gas explodes if it reaches a heat source (say....a volcano). We desperately need to mine these resources and use them all up as the earth continues to produce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty certain that will be the single dumbest thing I read on the internet today.
> 
> I do hand it to you. That was impressive in the sheer magnitude of its wrongness.The part about natural gas exploding when it reached a volcano was an original bit of stupidity that I hadn't seen before. So, at least you get points for creativity.
> 
> Now, if you need some help understanding the dumbess of your paragraph, let me give you some starting ponts.
> 
> Learn about the rate of formation of fossil fuels. Yes, earth is "creating" them, but on a scale of millions of years. Hence, it's dumb to declare earth keeps creating vast new quantities of htem right now.
> 
> Also learn where fossil fuels are found. The answer is "sedimentary formations". That is, not near volcanoes.
Click to expand...







What about the oil that Gold found in the middle of the continental craton?


----------



## mamooth

You mean the tiny trace of oil?

Abiotic oil exists, just not in any significant quantities.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> You mean the tiny trace of oil?
> 
> Abiotic oil exists, just not in any significant quantities.






According to every theory out there abiotic oil can't exist.  The fact that it WAS found has profound implications for the worlds energy systems, and other non energy related uses for oil.  And how do you know it doesn't exist in any meaningful quantities?  Seems like a pretty strong assertion based on zero evidence.


----------



## mamooth

westwall said:


> According to every theory out there abiotic oil can't exist.



I was unaware of any such theories. Can you point us to such a theory?



> The fact that it WAS found has profound implications for the worlds energy systems, and other non energy related uses for oil.



No, it doesn't, because all the theories agreed it would be there in trace quantities.



> And how do you know it doesn't exist in any meaningful quantities? Seems like a pretty strong assertion based on zero evidence.



That's not how science works. When someone makes a paradigm-shattering claim, it's up to them to prove it, as opposed to being up to anyone else to disprove it. I mean, just how could someone disprove it? If they dug a hole and found no significant abiotic oil, as has happened millions of times, abiotic oil theory backers would just claim they need to dig somewhere else.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how _insanely_ stupid progressives are - they want to rid the world of the CO2 plants require to thrive, in order to "save" plant life. You just can't make this stuff up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cannot be made up is how fucking stupid you are. Please post a link to where the scientists want to rid the world of CO2? You dumb bastard, if you researched anything at all about what scientists have to say about CO2, you would find that they state that CO2 is essential in the atmosphere not only for plant life, but as a GHG, to keep the oceans from freezing clear down to the equator. In fact, if you would like to lessen your vast ignorance a little, you might look up snowball earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Please provide a link to them making such a statement.
Click to expand...




westwall said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes gasoline and electricity are equal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The primary source of electricity are fixed point generators that produce enormous amounts of energy for a comparatively small amount of pollution.
Click to expand...

Comparatively as compared to what? That 'little' is changing the climate and surface temperature of the Earth. Deny it all you want, but the vast majority of scientists state that is the case.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how _insanely_ stupid progressives are - they want to rid the world of the CO2 plants require to thrive, in order to "save" plant life. You just can't make this stuff up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cannot be made up is how fucking stupid you are. Please post a link to where the scientists want to rid the world of CO2? You dumb bastard, if you researched anything at all about what scientists have to say about CO2, you would find that they state that CO2 is essential in the atmosphere not only for plant life, but as a GHG, to keep the oceans from freezing clear down to the equator. In fact, if you would like to lessen your vast ignorance a little, you might look up snowball earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Please provide a link to them making such a statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes gasoline and electricity are equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The primary source of electricity are fixed point generators that produce enormous amounts of energy for a comparatively small amount of pollution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comparatively as compared to what? That 'little' is changing the climate and surface temperature of the Earth. Deny it all you want, but the vast majority of scientists state that is the case.
Click to expand...







Sooo.  When NOAA said that the global temp in 1998 was 62 degrees.  And now they tell us that it is 58 and a new record....what does that mean to you?


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact - not mining these resources puts the earth in very grave danger. Earthquakes release massive amounts of oil (especially under the ocean floor and into the ocean) and natural gas explodes if it reaches a heat source (say....a volcano). We desperately need to mine these resources and use them all up as the earth continues to produce them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty certain that will be the single dumbest thing I read on the internet today.
> 
> I do hand it to you. That was impressive in the sheer magnitude of its wrongness.The part about natural gas exploding when it reached a volcano was an original bit of stupidity that I hadn't seen before. So, at least you get points for creativity.
> 
> Now, if you need some help understanding the dumbess of your paragraph, let me give you some starting ponts.
> 
> Learn about the rate of formation of fossil fuels. Yes, earth is "creating" them, but on a scale of millions of years. Hence, it's dumb to declare earth keeps creating vast new quantities of htem right now.
> 
> Also learn where fossil fuels are found. The answer is "sedimentary formations". That is, not near volcanoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the oil that Gold found in the middle of the continental craton?
Click to expand...

How many barrels is that oil field producing? Yes, there may be some abiotic oil being created, but it is very little, and very slow.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the tiny trace of oil?
> 
> Abiotic oil exists, just not in any significant quantities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to every theory out there abiotic oil can't exist.  The fact that it WAS found has profound implications for the worlds energy systems, and other non energy related uses for oil.  And how do you know it doesn't exist in any meaningful quantities?  Seems like a pretty strong assertion based on zero evidence.
Click to expand...

Once again, a flat statement with no link to back it up. I have seen articles with explanations of how abiotic oil may be produced. And all of them that were written by credible scientists stated at the end of the article that abiotic oil would only be produced in very small quantities, not enough to even count in the inventory of possible oil reserves.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the tiny trace of oil?
> 
> Abiotic oil exists, just not in any significant quantities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to every theory out there abiotic oil can't exist.  The fact that it WAS found has profound implications for the worlds energy systems, and other non energy related uses for oil.  And how do you know it doesn't exist in any meaningful quantities?  Seems like a pretty strong assertion based on zero evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, a flat statement with no link to back it up. I have seen articles with explanations of how abiotic oil may be produced. And all of them that were written by credible scientists stated at the end of the article that abiotic oil would only be produced in very small quantities, not enough to even count in the inventory of possible oil reserves.
Click to expand...







Please post a link to one of those please.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is how _insanely_ stupid progressives are - they want to rid the world of the CO2 plants require to thrive, in order to "save" plant life. You just can't make this stuff up...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What cannot be made up is how fucking stupid you are. Please post a link to where the scientists want to rid the world of CO2? You dumb bastard, if you researched anything at all about what scientists have to say about CO2, you would find that they state that CO2 is essential in the atmosphere not only for plant life, but as a GHG, to keep the oceans from freezing clear down to the equator. In fact, if you would like to lessen your vast ignorance a little, you might look up snowball earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Please provide a link to them making such a statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes gasoline and electricity are equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  The primary source of electricity are fixed point generators that produce enormous amounts of energy for a comparatively small amount of pollution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comparatively as compared to what? That 'little' is changing the climate and surface temperature of the Earth. Deny it all you want, but the vast majority of scientists state that is the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo.  When NOAA said that the global temp in 1998 was 62 degrees.  And now they tell us that it is 58 and a new record....what does that mean to you?
Click to expand...

*Mostly that you continue to be a liar.*











La Niña fizzles, making record warm global temperatures more likely


----------



## Wyatt earp

mamooth said:


> And as people talk, discovery of new oil keeps declining, not even coming close to keeping pace with oil consumption.
> 
> https://aspoireland.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/newsletter100_200904.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the logically-challenged, let me explain what that means. The oil eventually runs out. Non-conventional oil and natgas take up some slack, but they're finite as well, and it's not possible for any finite resource to last infinitely. It doesn't run out all at once, but petroleum products will gradually get scarcer and more expensive. In ten years, we'll be paying $10/gallon for gasoline, and people will be screaming bloody murder about the lack of alternatives.
> 
> Hate "green energy" all you want, but there's no other choice. It's either a green and nuclear combo, or it's life without electricity. And being vehicles can't run on nuclear, it's either electric vehicles or no vehicles. We environmentalists like electricity, so we would rather have alternate sources in place before the crisis occurs. That's a philosophy that the green energy haters don't seem to share.




It will never ever run out logic and common sense will tell you that, it will just be more rare and expensive by that time hundreds of years from now we will have a good alternative energy source.

But to jump in it with both fleets just makes it harsh on the middle class and poor people.

But your ilk don't give a Damn about poor people or the middle class which is obvious.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Initial indications of abiotic formation of hydrocarbons in the Rainbow ultramafic hydrothermal system, Mid-Atlantic Ridge

Nils G. Holma, , , 
Jean Luc Charloub
*

*Abstract*
In the presence of water, olivine of ultramafic rock is oxidized during the process referred to as ‘serpentinization’. Water in contact with the olivine is reduced to molecular hydrogen (H2) with the concomitant oxidation of Fe(II). The molecular hydrogen formed may be used as an energy source by lithotrophic bacteria, but may, at high temperature, also be combined with CO2 for the abiotic formation of organic compounds such as hydrocarbons and fatty acids through Fischer–Tropsch type (FTT) synthesis. Our analyses of fluids from the peridotite-hosted Rainbow hydrothermal field on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge indicate de novo synthesis of linear saturated hydrocarbons. The chain length of the hydrocarbons is between 16 and 29 carbon atoms. The discovery of FTT reactions in ultramafic hydrothermal systems on Earth provides an alternative pathway for the formation of early membranes and the origin of life.

*Now that didn't take long. Many others available.*


----------



## mamooth

westwall said:


> Sooo.  When NOAA said that the global temp in 1998 was 62 degrees.  And now they tell us that it is 58 and a new record....what does that mean to you?



It means you're stooping to a favorite type of denier dishonesty, baseline fraud.

If you want to claim you're not deliberately peddling a fraud, you should explain why you're pretending that measurements from two different baselines are using the same baseline.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo.  When NOAA said that the global temp in 1998 was 62 degrees.  And now they tell us that it is 58 and a new record....what does that mean to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means you're stooping to a favorite type of denier dishonesty, baseline fraud.
> 
> If you want to claim you're not deliberately peddling a fraud, you should explain why you're pretending that measurements from two different baselines are using the same baseline.
Click to expand...






Are you claiming that NOAA didn't make that declaration?


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> I'm pretty certain that will be the single dumbest thing I read on the internet today.


I'm pretty sure that's what _every_ progressive says when they can't dispute the facts.


mamooth said:


> Learn about the rate of formation of fossil fuels. Yes, earth is "creating" them, but on a scale of millions of years. Hence, it's dumb to declare earth keeps creating vast new quantities of htem right now.


Nobody said that the earth was producing "vast new quantities". But it's fall down hilarious that you thought aliens brought it. You had no idea that the earth creates it. And as such, it *must* be mined.


mamooth said:


> Also learn where fossil fuels are found. The answer is "sedimentary formations". That is, not near volcanoes.


Oil is formed in "sedimentary formations" you dumb-ass. *Not* natural gas.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo.  When NOAA said that the global temp in 1998 was 62 degrees.  And now they tell us that it is 58 and a new record....what does that mean to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It means you're stooping to a favorite type of denier dishonesty, baseline fraud.
> 
> If you want to claim you're not deliberately peddling a fraud, you should explain why you're pretending that measurements from two different baselines are using the same baseline.
Click to expand...

Watching you deny science is _hilarious_. You can't bring yourself to accept that your precious little progressive ideology is a farce.


----------



## hauke

yes earth makes oil.
it just takes 360 million years


----------



## P@triot

hauke said:


> yes earth makes oil.
> it just takes 360 million years


Yeah....and we've only been mining it for 120 years. Ask an adult to help you with the math.


----------



## mamooth

P@triot said:


> Oil is formed in "sedimentary formations" you dumb-ass. *Not* natural gas.



This should be fun.

Dr. Science, do tell us in what types of rock natural gas is found.

Back up your work. If you want to claim natural gas is usually found near volcanoes in igneous formations, explain how it got there, and provide references.

You're just a clown now, performing for our amusement. In case you didn't understand that, I just told you.


----------



## mamooth

westwall said:


> Are you claiming that NOAA didn't make that declaration?



You're the one claiming that 62.3 is not greater than 62, so you're the one who needs to explain your very peculiar reasoning. I'm the one pointing out that, just as NASA did, you have to take into the difference in baselines of 4.3F.  58.0 + 4.3 = 62.3, which is greater than 62.0. Hence, warming.

For those unfamiliar with the case ...

In 1997, NOAA was using one way of processing of station data to get a global temperature average. After the paper (Jones et al. 1999) demonstrated a better method, they switched to a that method, one that put more weighting on colder areas. Hence, the calculated "average global temperature" went down, by about 4.3F. Different baselines. (Which also destroys the denier conspiracy theory that scientists were inflating temperatures, given that they deflated the temperatures.)

See? Right in black and white here. "Please note The estimate for the baseline global temperature use in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline (Jones et al. 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analysis. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time."






Westwall is taking the more modern temperatures from the colder baseline, comparing them to older temperatures from the warmer baseline, and claiming it proves the past was warmer. Other denier propagandists have stopped using that sleaze tactic, because it instantly reveals how the person using it is peddling a very obvious fraud.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that NOAA didn't make that declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one claiming that 62.3 is not greater than 62, so you're the one who needs to explain your very peculiar reasoning. I'm the one pointing out that, just as NASA did, you have to take into the difference in baselines of 4.3F.  58.0 + 4.3 = 62.3, which is greater than 62.0. Hence, warming.
> 
> For those unfamiliar with the case ...
> 
> In 1997, NOAA was using one way of processing of station data to get a global temperature average. After the paper (Jones et al. 1999) demonstrated a better method, they switched to a that method, one that put more weighting on colder areas. Hence, the calculated "average global temperature" went down, by about 4.3F. Different baselines. (Which also destroys the denier conspiracy theory that scientists were inflating temperatures, given that they deflated the temperatures.)
> 
> See? Right in black and white here. "Please note The estimate for the baseline global temperature use in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline (Jones et al. 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analysis. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Westwall is taking the more modern temperatures from the colder baseline, comparing them to older temperatures from the warmer baseline, and claiming it proves the past was warmer. Other denier propagandists have stopped using that sleaze tactic, because it instantly reveals how the person using it is peddling a very obvious fraud.
Click to expand...











Wow.  Do you really think you can convince people of your lies?  My question to you was "which is greater, 58 degrees or 62 degrees?  NOAA proclaimed 1998 as the warmest ever at 62 degrees.  And then, just last year they proclaimed 2015 as the warmest ever at 58 degrees.  So....once again little dancer around the facts....which is greater....58 or 62?


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> yes earth makes oil.
> it just takes 360 million years







So, as the Earth is over 4 billion years the logical assumption is that oil is therefore being CONTINUOUSLY produced.  Is that what you are saying?


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil is formed in "sedimentary formations" you dumb-ass. *Not* natural gas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should be fun.
> 
> Dr. Science, do tell us in what types of rock natural gas is found.
> 
> Back up your work. If you want to claim natural gas is usually found near volcanoes in igneous formations, explain how it got there, and provide references.
> 
> You're just a clown now, performing for our amusement. In case you didn't understand that, I just told you.
Click to expand...

I *never* said it was found near volcanos. *You're* saying that because you embarrassed that you didn't know that the earth produces fossil fuels. You thought it was brought here by aliens and about to run out.


----------



## mamooth

westwall said:


> Wow.  Do you really think you can convince people of your lies?  My question to you was "which is greater, 58 degrees or 62 degrees?



62, obviously.

Now that I've directly answered your dishonest evasive question, you need to explain yourself. Why are you comparing calculated averages from two different baselines? Why are you lying your ass off and pretending that NOAA is doing it, when they've flat out stated not to do it?



> NOAA proclaimed 1998 as the warmest ever at 62 degrees.  And then, just last year they proclaimed 2015 as the warmest ever at 58 degrees.  So....once again little dancer around the facts....which is greater....58 or 62?



So, after being called out on your deliberate fraud of baseline fudging, you're simply not addressing the issue of being busted at all. You're just repeating the same fraud at a higher volume.

Maybe you're not the single most dishonest person I've ever encountered on the internet, but you're in the top ten.


----------



## mamooth

P@triot said:


> I *never* said it was found near volcanos. *You're* saying that because you embarrassed that you didn't know that the earth produces fossil fuels. You thought it was brought here by aliens and about to run out.



You're just making nonsense up now. As a buffoon, you had some comedic value. As a simple liar, you're boring. Bye-bye.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Do you really think you can convince people of your lies?  My question to you was "which is greater, 58 degrees or 62 degrees?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 62, obviously.
> 
> Now that I've directly answered your dishonest evasive question, you need to explain yourself. Why are you comparing calculated averages from two different baselines? Why are you lying your ass off and pretending that NOAA is doing it, when they've flat out stated not to do it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOAA proclaimed 1998 as the warmest ever at 62 degrees.  And then, just last year they proclaimed 2015 as the warmest ever at 58 degrees.  So....once again little dancer around the facts....which is greater....58 or 62?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, after being called out on your deliberate fraud of baseline fudging, you're simply not addressing the issue of being busted at all. You're just repeating the same fraud at a higher volume.
> 
> Maybe you're not the single most dishonest person I've ever encountered on the internet, but you're in the top ten.
Click to expand...






How is my question "dishonest" and "deceptive"?  If, as NOAA claimed way back in 1998 that the global temp was 62 degrees, then their claim last year that 58 degrees is the highest global temp recorded is a ....now....what is that word again?  You know...you do it all of the time....so...what is that word again.....?????   Oh yeah...   It is a LIE.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I *never* said it was found near volcanos. *You're* saying that because you embarrassed that you didn't know that the earth produces fossil fuels. You thought it was brought here by aliens and about to run out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just making nonsense up now. As a buffoon, you had some comedic value. As a simple liar, you're boring. Bye-bye.
Click to expand...

Boom! The lying progressive gets knocked out cold and throws the towel in the ring! Thank you!!!


----------



## mamooth

westwall said:


> How is my question "dishonest" and "deceptive"?



I answered that in detail in post #467.

Naturally, you refused to address it in any way, because you couldn't.

You're running now, and everyone sees it. My job here of revealing your fraud is done.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is my question "dishonest" and "deceptive"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that in detail in post #467.
> 
> Naturally, you refused to address it in any way, because you couldn't.
> 
> You're running now, and everyone sees it. My job here of revealing your fraud is done.
Click to expand...






So...  What you're saying is the "scientists" have run all of those historical temps through one of their special programs that somehow alters the data record in their favor.  Every single time.  Is that what you're saying?

Somehow, thermometers were faulty back then?  ALL of them?  EVERY thermometer in the WHOLE WORLD?  Is that what you are claiming?


----------



## P@triot

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is my question "dishonest" and "deceptive"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered that in detail in post #467.
> 
> Naturally, you refused to address it in any way, because you couldn't.
> 
> You're running now, and everyone sees it. My job here of revealing your fraud is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...  What you're saying is the "scientists" have run all of those historical temps through one of their special programs that somehow alters the data record in their favor.  Every single time.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Somehow, thermometers were faulty back then?  ALL of them?  EVERY thermometer in the WHOLE WORLD?  Is that what you are claiming?
Click to expand...

It _has_ to be westwall. After all...it doesn't support her bizarre progressive ideology so it _can't_ possibly be correct...


----------



## mamooth

westwall said:


> So...  What you're saying is the "scientists" have run all of those historical temps through one of their special programs that somehow alters the data record in their favor.  Every single time.  Is that what you're saying?



I'm saying that after being busted for fraud, you're now trying to cover your retreat by tossing out cult conspiracy theories.

Let me help you out. You know how you can tell what I'm saying? I say it.



> Somehow, thermometers were faulty back then?  ALL of them?  EVERY thermometer in the WHOLE WORLD?  Is that what you are claiming?



If you could address what I'm actually saying, you wouldn't have to always invoke the loopy conspiracy theories about what I'm supposedly saying.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...  What you're saying is the "scientists" have run all of those historical temps through one of their special programs that somehow alters the data record in their favor.  Every single time.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that after being busted for fraud, you're now trying to cover your retreat by tossing out pathologically dishonest cult conspiracy theories.
> 
> Let me help you out. You know how you can tell what I'm saying? I say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, thermometers were faulty back then?  ALL of them?  EVERY thermometer in the WHOLE WORLD?  Is that what you are claiming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you could address what I'm actually saying, you wouldn't have to always make up loopy conspiracy theories about what I'm supposedly saying.
Click to expand...







How am I the one being "busted for fraud" when I have no control over the fraudulent numbers that are being published?  The ONLY people who can be accused of fraud are your hero's.  You know, the ones who actually CONTROL which numbers are released to the public.  You know mammy, when you go dumb, you go all the way.


----------



## P@triot

Here is the bottom line mamooth - "Global Warming" has been proven to be a scam. Unequivocally, indisputably proven. I'm sorry if that shakes your precious little progressive foundation and that the realization that your progressive leaders have spent over a century lying to you is more than your fragile little psyche can handle, but it doesn't change the truth.

Not one but two rounds of scientists caught discussing how they falsify their data for progressives

Rebranding it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

Predicting the polar ice-cap would be completely melted by 2014 when it actually expanded 60% (over 900,000 sq miles)

Al Gore being forced to provide an astounding 88 pages of corrections to his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" in an England court as part of a law suit
Only a progressive would continue to believe something which is false in the face of such overwhelming evidence.


----------



## hauke

people earning millions or billions from oil will never pay their dues, they fuck nations , have fucked nations for 100 years


oil billionaers think its fun to fuck nations

these people think its fun to fuck million of people, so they can fuck children


----------



## hauke

if i could id put them in front of a wall and just shoot them


----------



## hauke

doesen t matter if it gets better won t get worth


----------



## hauke

i imagine i would be at a billionaers party in new york with diplomatic immunity and security

i start shooting billionaers, my security kills their security

i scream : " i got diplomatic imunity !"

while killing useless billionaer scum


----------



## P@triot

hauke said:


> people earning millions or billions from oil will never pay their dues, they fuck nations , have fucked nations for 100 years oil billionaers think its fun to fuck nations these people think its fun to fuck million of people, so they can fuck children


Spoken like a _true_ uneducated, uninformed, irrational progressive. Nobody has more to harm humanity than the progressive masters you worship. Al Gore and his pals have cheated millions out of billions. They've done it by convincing progressive minions such as yourself that the world is about to explode because of CO2 emissions - while they fly around on private jets and own 5 mansions giving each and every one of them a carbon footprint equal to a small third-world country.


----------



## P@triot

hauke said:


> i imagine i would be at a billionaers party in new york with diplomatic immunity and security i start shooting billionaers, my security kills their security i scream : " i got diplomatic imunity !" while killing useless billionaer scum


Once again spoken like a _true_ uneducated, uninformed, irrational progressive minion. Always resorting to violence out of envy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> people earning millions or billions from oil will never pay their dues, they fuck nations , have fucked nations for 100 years
> 
> 
> oil billionaers think its fun to fuck nations
> 
> these people think its fun to fuck million of people, so they can fuck children



Darn them! Providing the product that makes our high tech economy possible.
And making a profit while they do it. Unforgivable.

DERP!


----------



## mamooth

P@triot said:


> Here is the bottom line mamooth - "Global Warming" has been proven to be a scam. Unequivocally, indisputably proven.



No, you're parroting whiny cult nonsense, because that's what authoritarian lackeys do.

Now, I understand how you don't understand that you're parroting nonsense. You're kind of slow, hence you don't have the brainpower to understand that you're being played for a a fool. Your cult leaders fed you some stories, and then they simply counted on your sheeplike nature, knowing you'd never try to investigate things independently. You didn't disappoint them.



> I'm sorry if that shakes your precious little progressive foundation and that the realization that your progressive leaders have spent over a century lying to you is more than your fragile little psyche can handle, but it doesn't change the truth.



That's right, the whole world is wrong, and only your tiny fringe of barking right-wing loonies knows the RealTruth about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. I bet it makes you feel real important to believe that. That's what your masters were counting on, and why it was so easy to suck you into the cult. You get to define yourself as brave and brilliant, and you don't have to do any thinking, or any work at all! You just have to parrot the proper cult mantras. After all, that boring sciencey stuff with the boring facts and data is all a big liberal plot anyways. Your conspiracy theory is much easier to understand, and much more exciting



> Not one but two rounds of scientists caught discussing how they falsify their data for progressives



And so you start with an outright lie. Predictable, and boring.



> Rebranding it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"


That's something the conservative Bush adminstration did, because they thought "Global Warming" sounded to scary. It's amusing, how ignorant of history you are, just as your masters intended.



> Predicting the polar ice-cap would be completely melted by 2014 when it actually expanded 60% (over 900,000 sq miles)


No. One scientist, Wadhams, makes a lot of bad predictions, but nobody except deniers pay attention to him. All the other scientists have been very good, but deniers, who depend entirely on cherrypicking, will ignore them and focus on the one bad scientist.

And 2016, second lowest Arctic sea ice extent ever, continuing the steady decline. The data says you're totally wrong.



> Al Gore being forced to provide an astounding 88 pages of corrections to his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" in an England court as part of a law suit


In addition to that being some sort of denier urban legend, it also invokes the Gore Rule, which states that whoever brings up Al Gore first forfeits the thread for their own side. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, they rave about politicians who have nothing to do with the science.



> Only a progressive would continue to believe something which is false in the face of such overwhelming evidence.



Your masters think of you as a Useful Idiot. If you had any pride, you'd ask your masters why they lied to you so egregiously. But you won't. You'll do what you always do. You'll drop to your knees, lick their boots with gusto, and beg for more lies.


----------



## P@triot

The Clinton's continue to taunt coal miners and promise to put the industry out of work. Typical idiotic progressive policy - destroy jobs and destroy energy options.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> And so you start with an outright lie. Predictable, and boring.


Wait....wait....wait....let me get this straight. The best you've got to explain away "Climate Gate" is to pretend like it never existed and proclaim it a lie?



Sweetie...I've filled this thread with facts, links, video, etc. The _only_ thing you've done so far is yell "I'm rubber...you're glue". It's ok sweetie - we're all use to progressive minions such as yourself. Some people just aren't capable of growing up and being independent. After 18 years of being cared for and parented, progressives are too scared to not have someone telling them what to do and what not to do. The problem is, you failed to properly vet your progressive masters before giving them the power to think for you.


----------



## mamooth

P@triot said:


> Wait....wait....wait....let me get this straight. The best you've got to explain away "Climate Gate" is to pretend like it never existed and proclaim it a lie?



Deny Climategate? You're kidding, right? After all, that's when your liars' cult got humiliated after getting busted repeatedly for faking all their data. After Climategate, everyone on the planet knew with 100% certainty that all denier cultists simply make up everything. We never tire of pointing that out. The more interesting question is why you want more of such humiliation.



> Sweetie...I've filled this thread with facts, links, video, etc.


No, you've spouted a bunch of unsupported cult conspiracy theories, and then squealed and ran when they got shot down. Typical cultist behavior.

I'm happy to give you a chance to demonstrate otherwise. Since you've proclaimed yourself so into real facts and data, I'll be happy to discuss any ClimateGate emails with you, and point out specifically where you're lying about them. Are you up for that? Make sure you quote full emails, with full context, and not just what your cult blog claimed about them.

Sadly, we all know you'll evade and run now. You know nothing except what your cult blogs told you, so you're not capable of anything except parroting lists of talking points.



> The _only_ thing you've done so far is yell "I'm rubber...you're glue". It's ok sweetie - we're all use to progressive minions such as yourself. Some people just aren't capable of growing up and being independent. After 18 years of being cared for and parented, progressives are too scared to not have someone telling them what to do and what not to do. The problem is, you failed to properly vet your progressive masters before giving them the power to think for you.



Tissue? When you try this hard to deflect, I know I've whupped you good. I think it was this piece that really deflated you and left you crying, so I'll repeat it.

That's right, the whole world is wrong, and only your tiny fringe of barking right-wing loonies knows the RealTruth about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. I bet it makes you feel real important to believe that. That's what your masters were counting on, and why it was so easy to suck you into the cult. You get to define yourself as brave and brilliant, and you don't have to do any thinking, or any work at all! You just have to parrot the proper cult mantras. After all, that boring sciencey stuff with the boring facts and data is all a big liberal plot anyways. Your conspiracy theory is much easier to understand, and much more exciting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....wait....wait....let me get this straight. The best you've got to explain away "Climate Gate" is to pretend like it never existed and proclaim it a lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deny Climategate? You're kidding, right? After all, that's when your liars' cult got humiliated after getting busted repeatedly for faking all their data. After Climategate, everyone on the planet knew with 100% certainty that all denier cultists simply make up everything. We never tire of pointing that out. The more interesting question is why you want more of such humiliation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie...I've filled this thread with facts, links, video, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you've spouted a bunch of unsupported cult conspiracy theories, and then squealed and ran when they got shot down. Typical cultist behavior.
> 
> I'm happy to give you a chance to demonstrate otherwise. Since you've proclaimed yourself so into real facts and data, I'll be happy to discuss any ClimateGate emails with you, and point out specifically where you're lying about them. Are you up for that? Make sure you quote full emails, with full context, and not just what your cult blog claimed about them.
> 
> Sadly, we all know you'll evade and run now. You know nothing except what your cult blogs told you, so you're not capable of anything except parroting lists of talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing you've done so far is yell "I'm rubber...you're glue". It's ok sweetie - we're all use to progressive minions such as yourself. Some people just aren't capable of growing up and being independent. After 18 years of being cared for and parented, progressives are too scared to not have someone telling them what to do and what not to do. The problem is, you failed to properly vet your progressive masters before giving them the power to think for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tissue? When you try this hard to deflect, I know I've whupped you good. I think it was this piece that really deflated you and left you crying, so I'll repeat it.
> 
> That's right, the whole world is wrong, and only your tiny fringe of barking right-wing loonies knows the RealTruth about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot. I bet it makes you feel real important to believe that. That's what your masters were counting on, and why it was so easy to suck you into the cult. You get to define yourself as brave and brilliant, and you don't have to do any thinking, or any work at all! You just have to parrot the proper cult mantras. After all, that boring sciencey stuff with the boring facts and data is all a big liberal plot anyways. Your conspiracy theory is much easier to understand, and much more exciting.
Click to expand...


*After all, that's when your liars' cult got humiliated after getting busted repeatedly for faking all their data.*

I know! Those fucking warmers are the worst.
At least Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize for all his lies and faked data, eh?


----------



## mamooth

Mann didn't fake any data, but Todd just did.

Not only did the deniers all get busted as frauds, they keep on getting busted as frauds.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mamooth said:


> Mann didn't fake any data, but Todd just did.
> 
> Not only did the deniers all get busted as frauds, they keep on getting busted as frauds.



*Mann didn't fake any data,*

Except for erasing the MWP and the LIA

And lying about winning a Nobel.
But who's counting?


----------



## docmauser1

mamooth said:


> So you're going to cling to that dying technology to the bitter end? So be it. Not anyone else's problem.


Funny drivel.


----------



## docmauser1

elektra said:


> According to Moot, it takes 1,000,000 people to make 1% of the USA's power if it is Renewable Energy funded by the government, but it takes only 75,000 to make 40% of the USA's power from Coal. I guess once we employ 40,000,000 people in Solar and Wind, ...


to flash flashlights on to solar panels at night and break winds for wind tubines ...


----------



## P@triot

This is the special kind of stupid that could _only_ come from progressives and once again proves that "green energy" is completely unsustainable.

Over $17,000 _per_ household just on the initial install cost?!? That's enough money to pay my energy bill until the day I die.

The salt water of the ocean is incredibly corrosive and makes operating such facilities difficult and expensive. Electricity is so comparatively cheap in most parts of the country that offshore wind isn’t generally necessary.

Offshore wind is so pricey that early investors in it, like Germany, plan to stop building new turbines to lower the costs of electricity and prop up its ailing power grid.

However, the average American’s electric bill has gone up 10 percent since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, due to regulations imposed by government officials and taxpayer support for green energy
US Offshore Wind Plant Costs $17,600 Per Home Powered


----------



## elektra

The politicians want the public to go without power, they want us to suffer like a third world country. That is why they build the largest piece of garbage they can.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....wait....wait....let me get this straight. The best you've got to explain away "Climate Gate" is to pretend like it never existed and proclaim it a lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deny Climategate? You're kidding, right? After all, that's when your liars' cult got humiliated after getting busted repeatedly for faking all their data. After Climategate, everyone on the planet knew with 100% certainty that all denier cultists simply make up everything. We never tire of pointing that out. The more interesting question is why you want more of such humiliation.
Click to expand...

Poor little mamooth is showing _everyone_ she is dumb as hell. She's too stupid to realize that "Climategate" was when progressives were humiliated when their liars cult was busted for faking all of their data on "Global Warming". After "Climategate", everyone on the planet knew with 100% certainty that progressives are pathological liars and that "Global Warming" is a scam. Here sweetie - read about the climategate scandal:

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate


----------



## mamooth

Patriot, when I point out how your liars' cult got caught lying about Climategate, repeating the same lies probably wasn't your best choice of strategy. I mean, linking to an opinion piece from Heartland shill James Taylor, one of the head liars? Pathetic.

Here's a challenge. Point out one of those "lies" that you claim was found. Specifically. Type it out here, and link back to the original source, so everyone can verify it. If you haven't been proudly lying on behalf of your cult, that should be no problem at all for you.

Also, understand that I've got the emails in files on my computer, so I'll know if you posted fudged or altered data, as deniers usually do.

Of course, you can't even do that much. You've never even read any of the emails. You're just a brainless and gutless cult parrot. Your masters tell you what to say, and you say it. You wouldn't dare look at facts and data yourself, because your masters have forbidden you from viewing such heresy.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> Patriot, when I point out how your liars' cult got caught lying about Climategate, repeating the same lies probably wasn't your best choice of strategy. I mean, linking to an opinion piece from Heartland shill James Taylor, one of the head liars? Pathetic.
> 
> Here's a challenge. Point out one of those "lies" that you claim was found. Specifically. Type it out here, and link back to the original source, so everyone can verify it. If you haven't been proudly lying on behalf of your cult, that should be no problem at all for you.
> 
> Also, understand that I've got the emails in files on my computer, so I'll know if you posted fudged or altered data, as deniers usually do.
> 
> Of course, you can't even do that much. You've never even read any of the emails. You're just a brainless and gutless cult parrot. Your masters tell you what to say, and you say it. You wouldn't dare look at facts and data yourself, because your masters have forbidden you from viewing such heresy.


There is a link right above, _stupid_ it. *Read* *it*. Your progressive activists got caught. Deal with it. And if you can't - oh well. The rest of the world can and now knows that your side is a bunch of pathological liars.


----------



## mamooth

Coward, your link was to an opinion piece. I want actual evidence, right here, presented by you. Don't just link to some paid denier shill's crazy opinion piece.

You say the emails showed lies. If you didn't just make it all up, then show us some evidence.

However, if you did make it all up, just keep doing what you're doing, which is crying and running away from a crazy claim that you can't support. Everyone will understand that means you made it all up.


----------



## P@triot

mamooth said:


> Coward, your link was to an opinion piece.


"Opinion piece" 

It was a *news* *article* you _tool_ - complete with quotes from the emails. No matter how many times you deny reality, everyone else can see it for themselves. Apparently mamooth thought that Eddie Murphy's Raw was a seminar instead of stand up comedy. This is her approach to life and progressive corruption...


----------



## mamooth

P@triot said:


> It was a *news* *article* you _tool_ -



Which is why the title "Opinion" is there in giant bold letters at the top of it.

Are you really as stupid as you now look, or was that dishonesty deliberate?



> complete with quotes from the emails.



You mean unsourced cherrypicked snippets of supposed emails.

So, to summarize. You were asked for evidence to back up your conspiracy kookery. You won't present any, and just cry at me instead. And everyone sees that.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

The percentage of Americans who perceive "Global Warming" as a serious threat is at its lowest point since 1998. And that is despite progressives best efforts to increase propaganda, outlaw the truth, and and legislate the "Global Warming" farce into "reality". But the truth _always_ comes out in the end. The people are waking up and realizing this was all about power and control by the Dumbocrats. Part of the reason for the truth coming out is that after 20 years of lies - the American people realize that none of them came to fruition. The other reason is technology. Stuff like Wikileaks is showing people the true colors of the disgusting progressives.

Media Made Right Call to Ignore Climate Change in Debates


----------



## P@triot

Seattle will be the next Detroit. Count on it. There ignorant, *failed* left-wing policies are just _killing_ that city. There is nothing more absurd than the left's "green energy" pipe dream. We are still many decades away from it being a viable source of energy...


> Recently, Seattle’s Waterfront Park decided it would be a good idea to buy a set of three wind turbines for around $107,000. The three wind turbines (who are all white, if you were wondering) will generate $1.39 worth of electricity a day, or a spectacular $42 a month. Now, that may not seem like a lot, but that’s because that’s the low estimate. At peak generation, the turbines will create about . . . wait for it . . . over 5 bucks a day! Or $168 a month in electricity! At that rate, *it will only take about 53 years for the wind turbines to pay for themselves*! Well, assuming no maintenance costs. Or staffing. Or anything else.


Proving yet again that progressives are completely ignorant of basic business and basic economics. They have absolutely no concept of ROI or TCO, etc. But wait. The insanity doesn't stop there. It gets better. As usual, the ignorant progressive "representative" has no idea what they are voting on...


> City Councilwoman Sissi Bruch summed up the wind turbines’ energy production perfectly — along with the reason government is horrible at everything: “I did not realize they would produce so little energy. I wouldn’t have voted for it knowing it was that little.”


#GreenFail: Taxpayers Foot $107K Bill for Wind Turbines That Don’t Work


----------



## ScienceRocks

Green energy is the 2nd and 3rd most installed energy in this nation. How is that unsustainable? Oh'yess, fake idiot doesn't know wtf he is talking about.


----------



## P@triot

ScienceRocks said:


> Green energy is the 2nd and 3rd most installed energy in this nation. How is that unsustainable? Oh'yess, fake idiot doesn't know wtf he is talking about.


Just because it is "installed" doesn't make it any good, dumb shit... 

When you have to pay $107,000 for 3 wind turbines which produce a pitiful - and laughable - $1.39 worth of electricity per day resulting in a 53 year wait to break even, _that_ is the definition of unsustainable.

It is downright scary how stupid you progressives are, ScienceRocks.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Got a link? You realize even 2% could be 2nd and 1% could be third.


----------



## Skull Pilot

P@triot said:


> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy is the 2nd and 3rd most installed energy in this nation. How is that unsustainable? Oh'yess, fake idiot doesn't know wtf he is talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because it is "installed" doesn't make it any good, dumb shit...
> 
> When you have to pay $107,000 for 3 wind turbines which produce a pitiful - and laughable - $1.39 worth of electricity per day resulting in a 53 year wait to break even, _that_ is the definition of unsustainable.
> 
> It is downright scary how stupid you progressives are, ScienceRocks.
Click to expand...

especially when a wind turbine only has about a 20 year lifespan


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy is the 2nd and 3rd most installed energy in this nation. How is that unsustainable? Oh'yess, fake idiot doesn't know wtf he is talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because it is "installed" doesn't make it any good, dumb shit...
> 
> When you have to pay $107,000 for 3 wind turbines which produce a pitiful - and laughable - $1.39 worth of electricity per day resulting in a 53 year wait to break even, _that_ is the definition of unsustainable.
> 
> It is downright scary how stupid you progressives are, ScienceRocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> especially when a wind turbine only has about a 20 year lifespan
Click to expand...

Fucking dumb comments. Outright lies and half truths are all these luddites have. 




There are now 67,870 MW of installed wind capacity in the U.S. and over 49,000 wind turbines online.

Wind Farms in Oregon

This would not be happening were anything you are stating true. 

As for the life span of a turbine, yes, after 20 years, you pull the turbine off the support, and put another one up there, then rebuild the old one. Anyone that works with industrial machinery understands that no machine lasts forever.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> Fucking dumb comments. Outright lies and half truths are all these luddites have.


Snowflake....what are you _talking_ about?!? There are no "half-truths" here. Seattle just installed three wind turbines at a cost of $107,000. Because they generate a laughable and pitiful $1.39 per day in electricity (or a pathetic $42 per month), it will take 53 years to break even on these idiotic devices. And that's only if they don't need to be replaced or require no maintenance (which we all know is impossible).

The "green energy" is an idiotic pipe dream. Some day it will be a great solution, but we are still many decades away from it being a viable energy source. The left always embraces failed ideologies, technologies, etc.

#GreenFail: Taxpayers Foot $107K Bill for Wind Turbines That Don’t Work


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScienceRocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy is the 2nd and 3rd most installed energy in this nation. How is that unsustainable? Oh'yess, fake idiot doesn't know wtf he is talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because it is "installed" doesn't make it any good, dumb shit...
> 
> When you have to pay $107,000 for 3 wind turbines which produce a pitiful - and laughable - $1.39 worth of electricity per day resulting in a 53 year wait to break even, _that_ is the definition of unsustainable.
> 
> It is downright scary how stupid you progressives are, ScienceRocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> especially when a wind turbine only has about a 20 year lifespan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking dumb comments. Outright lies and half truths are all these luddites have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are now 67,870 MW of installed wind capacity in the U.S. and over 49,000 wind turbines online.
> 
> Wind Farms in Oregon
> 
> This would not be happening were anything you are stating true.
> 
> As for the life span of a turbine, yes, after 20 years, you pull the turbine off the support, and put another one up there, then rebuild the old one. Anyone that works with industrial machinery understands that no machine lasts forever.
Click to expand...

And once again you use installed capacity not ACTUAL OUTPUT

Installed capacity means JACK SHIT.

And you call me a Luddite when you refuse to acknowledge the viability of nuclear power and that is just plain old narrow mindedness especially since you ignore the actual performance and dismal performance of wind power in countries that have already wasted billions on it


----------



## Old Rocks

Wind generation accounted for nearly 23 percent of power generation for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) in the first quarter of 2017, the Lone Star State grid operator said this week.

The announcement marks the highest quarterly wind penetration in ERCOT’s history and underscores the market challenges facing the coal industry in Texas, where power plants consumed some 86 million tons of the black mineral in 2015, or more than double the next largest coal-consuming state.

“It’s just one more data point in renewables’ march to greater market share,” said Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, Austin.

ERCOT is the primary grid operator in Texas, where it serves 24 million customers.

The Rise of Wind Power in Texas

*In spite of all the yap-yap, that oh so Liberal state of Texas just keeps installing more and more wind power. And now they are doing the same for solar. What is wrong with those ultra-Liberal Texans? Don't they know that you super intelligent "Conservatives" have already proven that those wind towers only put out a $1.37 worth of electricity a day? LOL You idiots resort to the silliest lies.*


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> Don't they know that you super intelligent "Conservatives" have already proven that those wind towers only put out *a $1.37 worth of electricity a day*?


One does not need to "prove" *reality*, snowflake. That's the pitiful output of renewable energy sources. Some day they will be a viable option. But we are still many decades away.


----------



## Old Rocks

Hey cocksuck, the energy put out by the mills and solar in is reality. A stooge and willfully ignorant ass like you would not know reality if it bit you in the butt.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> Hey *cocksuck*, the energy put out by the mills and solar *in is reality*. A stooge and willfully ignorant ass like you would not know reality if it bit you in the butt.


What grade did you drop out of high school, snowflake?


----------



## Old Rocks

Over 50 years working sawmills, construction, and steel mills as a millwright. Learned early on to address the mentally handicapped in language that they can comprehend. Oh yeah, and just for my own curiosity, have taken a lot of college classes. The highest being Eng. Geo. 470/570. Now tell me, did you even finish grade school? Ever take any science class?


----------



## Slash

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking dumb comments. Outright lies and half truths are all these luddites have.
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake....what are you _talking_ about?!? There are no "half-truths" here. Seattle just installed three wind turbines at a cost of $107,000. Because they generate a laughable and pitiful $1.39 per day in electricity (or a pathetic $42 per month), it will take 53 years to break even on these idiotic devices. And that's only if they don't need to be replaced or require no maintenance (which we all know is impossible).
> 
> The "green energy" is an idiotic pipe dream. Some day it will be a great solution, but we are still many decades away from it being a viable energy source. The left always embraces failed ideologies, technologies, etc.
> 
> #GreenFail: Taxpayers Foot $107K Bill for Wind Turbines That Don’t Work
Click to expand...


And this is the idiots response.  So if there's a drilling for oil and it comes up empty that means using oil at all is a failed system we need to move on from? I mean that's your logic if you switch the situation. 

You are basing your entirety of wind not working on three ten foot tall turbines used for aesthetics in a park.   Next thing you'll be saying that Guitars don't really make music cause you saw one on the wall at a hard rock and it didn't play right buttercup?  


Wind energy is brand new as far as catching on.  And prices for it are plummeting.  UNSUBSIDIZED vs. UNSUBSIDIZED, including capital costs and operating costs, Lazard (top asset management firm) has wind energy costing between $32-$62 per megawatt hour.  Coal between $60 and $140.  That's a 90% decrease on the cost in the past 30 years for wind.  

And why are you saying it's the left that is embracing it?  This is being embraced by Texas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, Iowa, South Dakota, Idaho, and Oklahoma.   About as far to the right as states get.  Kansas and Iowa are on the chase to see who gets to create over half their states energy by wind, should find out who in the next year or two.  Are you really trying to claim that those are the states that are hotbeds of liberal left wingers? 


I mean the topic out here right now is linking up the electrical from the midwest with California to start supplying energy for them.  You are that against Californian's writing checks to people in Wyoming and Kansas?  

We import about 5 million barrels of oil/natural gas more than we export.  Meaning our cash flow is heading right out the door, and a big chunk of it is making a lot of Islamic ruled countries VERY happy and very powerful.   If we can make some of that up by finding home built energy sources.  


As a Republican I say HELL YES I am for that, especially when these are being made in the US, by Americans, for Americans rather than relying on the middle east and giving them our money. So what if it's green.


----------



## P@triot

Slash said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking dumb comments. Outright lies and half truths are all these luddites have.
> 
> 
> 
> Snowflake....what are you _talking_ about?!? There are no "half-truths" here. Seattle just installed three wind turbines at a cost of $107,000. Because they generate a laughable and pitiful $1.39 per day in electricity (or a pathetic $42 per month), it will take 53 years to break even on these idiotic devices. And that's only if they don't need to be replaced or require no maintenance (which we all know is impossible).
> 
> The "green energy" is an idiotic pipe dream. Some day it will be a great solution, but we are still many decades away from it being a viable energy source. The left always embraces failed ideologies, technologies, etc.
> 
> #GreenFail: Taxpayers Foot $107K Bill for Wind Turbines That Don’t Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are basing your entirety of wind not working on three ten foot tall turbines used for aesthetics in a park.   Next thing you'll be saying that Guitars don't really make music cause you saw one on the wall at a hard rock and it didn't play right buttercup?
Click to expand...

Wait....wait....wait. You're desperate argument Slash is that Seattle paid $107,000 for wind turbines they expected *not* to work - for aesthetics?

Holy shit........I just........I can't....


----------



## P@triot

Slash said:


> And why are you saying it's the left that is embracing it?  This is being embraced by Texas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, Iowa, South Dakota, Idaho, and Oklahoma.   About as far to the right as states get.


Hey dumbass? You do realize that idiot progressives live in _every_ state in the U.S., don't you? There are Democrat Mayors in Texas because some cities are dominated by progressives.

You are _scary_ stupid. Or desperate. Or both.


----------



## P@triot

Slash said:


> We import about 5 million barrels of oil/natural gas more than we export.  Meaning our cash flow is heading right out the door, and a big chunk of it is making a lot of Islamic ruled countries VERY happy and very powerful.   If we can make some of that up by finding home built energy sources.


Yeah - because idiot progressives block oil production. Barack Insane Obama placed a moratorium on offshore drilling and blocked the Keystone Pipeline.


----------



## WinterBorn

Green energy is not cost effective right now.   But one sure way to make sure it is never cost effective is to demand that it be so right off the bat.  The improvements have been huge.

And using oil as the basis for our energy needs is not sustainable either.  There is a finite amount of oil.  It will run out.  To ignore that is to doom the world as we know it.


----------



## bripat9643

WinterBorn said:


> Green energy is not cost effective right now.   But one sure way to make sure it is never cost effective is to demand that it be so right off the bat.  The improvements have been huge.
> 
> And using oil as the basis for our energy needs is not sustainable either.  There is a finite amount of oil.  It will run out.  To ignore that is to doom the world as we know it.


Yeah because we know oil and coal weren't cost effective the first time they were tried  .  .  .  .  .  . er, no, that's not right.


----------



## WinterBorn

bripat9643 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy is not cost effective right now.   But one sure way to make sure it is never cost effective is to demand that it be so right off the bat.  The improvements have been huge.
> 
> And using oil as the basis for our energy needs is not sustainable either.  There is a finite amount of oil.  It will run out.  To ignore that is to doom the world as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because we know oil and coal weren't cost effective the first time they were tried  .  .  .  .  .  . er, no, that's not right.
Click to expand...


Oil & coal burn.   That is the sum total of it.   But surely you are not claiming the efficiency of fossil fuels has not improved?

The fact us that we have the fuels for nuclear power to last for centuries.  Wind, solar and other sustainable sources can last even longer.   Fossil fuels will not last centuries.


----------



## P@triot

WinterBorn said:


> Green energy is not cost effective right now.   But one sure way to make sure it is never cost effective is to demand that it be so right off the bat.  The improvements have been huge.


I don't demand that green energy be "cost effective" right now. I demand that government stop throwing money at it unconstitutionally. If Al Gore and his pals want to develop it - that's on _them_.


WinterBorn said:


> And using oil as the basis for our energy needs is not sustainable either.  There is a finite amount of oil.  It will run out.  To ignore that is to doom the world as we know it.


Oil doesn't run our energy sector chief (it runs automobiles). Coal, natural gas, and nuclear run our energy sector. And the earth is constantly making natural gas as it breaks down materials. It is not only infinite, it is _imperative_ that we use it. And burning it is *very* clean.


----------



## bripat9643

WinterBorn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy is not cost effective right now.   But one sure way to make sure it is never cost effective is to demand that it be so right off the bat.  The improvements have been huge.
> 
> And using oil as the basis for our energy needs is not sustainable either.  There is a finite amount of oil.  It will run out.  To ignore that is to doom the world as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah because we know oil and coal weren't cost effective the first time they were tried  .  .  .  .  .  . er, no, that's not right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oil & coal burn.   That is the sum total of it.   But surely you are not claiming the efficiency of fossil fuels has not improved?
> 
> The fact us that we have the fuels for nuclear power to last for centuries.  Wind, solar and other sustainable sources can last even longer.   Fossil fuels will not last centuries.
Click to expand...


Too bad the greenies are against nuclear.  Wind and solar will never practical to power and advanced industrial economy.  The best plan is to use fossil fuels until fusion comes online.  That would happen a lot sooner if they took all the money the government spends on so-called "green energy" and devoted it to fusion research.


----------



## P@triot

WinterBorn said:


> And using oil as the basis for our energy needs is not sustainable either.  There is a finite amount of oil.  It will run out.  To ignore that is to doom the world as we know it.


And not for nothing...but there is *no* "finite amount". This massive planet is constantly making more of it.


> Over millions of years, layer after layer of sediment and other plants and bacteria were formed. Stage 2 - As they became buried ever deeper, heat and pressure began to rise. The amount of pressure and the degree of heat, along with the type of biomass, determined if the material became *oil* or natural gas.


Adventures in Energy


----------



## WinterBorn

P@triot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And using oil as the basis for our energy needs is not sustainable either.  There is a finite amount of oil.  It will run out.  To ignore that is to doom the world as we know it.
> 
> 
> 
> And not for nothing...but there is *no* "finite amount". This massive planet is constantly making more of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Over millions of years, layer after layer of sediment and other plants and bacteria were formed. Stage 2 - As they became buried ever deeper, heat and pressure began to rise. The amount of pressure and the degree of heat, along with the type of biomass, determined if the material became *oil* or natural gas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Adventures in Energy
Click to expand...


Yes, fossil fuels are being formed all the time.   But not at the rate at which we consume them.


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Green energy is not cost effective right now.   But one sure way to make sure it is never cost effective is to demand that it be so right off the bat.  The improvements have been huge.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't demand that green energy be "cost effective" right now. I demand that government stop throwing money at it unconstitutionally. If Al Gore and his pals want to develop it - that's on _them_.
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And using oil as the basis for our energy needs is not sustainable either.  There is a finite amount of oil.  It will run out.  To ignore that is to doom the world as we know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oil doesn't run our energy sector chief (it runs automobiles). Coal, natural gas, and nuclear run our energy sector. And the earth is constantly making natural gas as it breaks down materials. It is not only infinite, it is _imperative_ that we use it. And burning it is *very* clean.
Click to expand...

Well, dumb fuck, demand all you want, and the utilities that are putting up the windmills will just ignore you. It is economics that is driving the increase in wind and solar. If the government subsidies stopped tomorrow, the installation of wind and solar might slow for a year or two. But, as the prices continue to drop, then the construction of the alternative energy will pick up again, and more coal plants will close down.


----------



## anotherlife

Sustainable green energy is in space.  Too bad the liberals that push for green energy also push for the demise of space technologies.


----------



## Old Rocks

Why in space? We need the energy here on earth. And we can easily get it. Between wind and solar, with grid scale storage, we can more than supply all the energy needs of this planet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Solar power satellites. Plenty of aluminum and silicon on the Moon.


----------



## ScienceRocks

So the chinese are stupid?

*China installed record 24.4GW of solar in first-half of 2017*



> 24.4GW of solar in the first-half of 2017, a new year-on-year record, 9% above last years record installation figures.
> 
> Recently, independent industry advisory firm AECEA noted that China PV installations in the second quarter of 2017 could reach between 16-17GW, pushing first half year figures to a new record high of over 24GW, compared to around 21GW in the prior year period.
> 
> Total installed solar PV power generation capacity reached 101.82GW, according to CPIA, which included 84.39GW classified as of utility-scale PV and 14.73GW classified as distributed PV.
> 
> AECEA also noted that China was just around 3GW away from its 13th Five-Year-Plan (2016-2020) target of reaching cumulative installations of 105GW.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> Too bad the greenies are against nuclear.  Wind and solar will never practical to power and advanced industrial economy.  The best plan is to use fossil fuels until fusion comes online.  That would happen a lot sooner if they took all the money the government spends on so-called "green energy" and devoted it to fusion research.




Not really, the green subsidy/tax breaks are a drop in the bucket compared to what oil/gas industry get.  And why isn't wind/solar practical?  It's actually hugely practical.  No need for massive transportation of power sources to the energy plant.  That alone makes it SO MUCH MORE practical.


----------



## Slash

Old Rocks said:


> Well, dumb fuck, demand all you want, and the utilities that are putting up the windmills will just ignore you. It is economics that is driving the increase in wind and solar. If the government subsidies stopped tomorrow, the installation of wind and solar might slow for a year or two. But, as the prices continue to drop, then the construction of the alternative energy will pick up again, and more coal plants will close down.



Do you mean cut all subsidies and tax breaks?   Because unsubsidized vs. unsubsidized, forbes did a breakdown and including building, maintaining, etc, wind energy is now the least expensive.    

Granted we like subsidies, so we keep propping up gas/oil.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the greenies are against nuclear.  Wind and solar will never practical to power and advanced industrial economy.  The best plan is to use fossil fuels until fusion comes online.  That would happen a lot sooner if they took all the money the government spends on so-called "green energy" and devoted it to fusion research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, the green subsidy/tax breaks are a drop in the bucket compared to what oil/gas industry get.  And why isn't wind/solar practical?  It's actually hugely practical.  No need for massive transportation of power sources to the energy plant.  That alone makes it SO MUCH MORE practical.
Click to expand...


*Not really, the green subsidy/tax breaks are a drop in the bucket compared to what oil/gas industry get.*

The government mails checks to producers/users of oil and gas to keep the price?
Tell me more!
Maybe list some of these tax breaks, if you can?


----------



## Slash

Besides building the rail systems to remote area's to the cost of what would be hundreds of billions today to provide the infrastructure to make coal/oil usable... 

Maybe you've been under a rock, but Trump has been touting how he'd do it with increasing use of public lands for oil/gas (remember those lease rates haven't gone up since 1987, so yes, they are getting a HECK of a deal there).  

SInce you seem to be rather uneducated on the subject, I'll give you a few to look at: 

Corporate tax exemption for Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs, 3/4 are fossil fuel companies)
Deduction for intangible drilling costs
Lost/reduced royalties from leasing of federal lands for onshore and offshore drilling
Percentage depletion allowance –independent producers can deduct 14-15% of large investment costs from income taxes*
Domestic manufacturing deduction – allows oil producers to claim a tax break intended for U.S. manufacturers to prevent job outsourcing*
Carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration credit – tax credit of $20 per ton of CO2 sequestered (largely from coal plants); $10 per ton for CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery
Exemption from passive loss limitation – exempts investors from limits on deductions of losses from oil and gas activities in which they are not directly involved
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)

Over half a trillion has gone into fossil fuels since 1950.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Besides building the rail systems to remote area's to the cost of what would be hundreds of billions today to provide the infrastructure to make coal/oil usable...
> 
> Maybe you've been under a rock, but Trump has been touting how he'd do it with increasing use of public lands for oil/gas (remember those lease rates haven't gone up since 1987, so yes, they are getting a HECK of a deal there).
> 
> SInce you seem to be rather uneducated on the subject, I'll give you a few to look at:
> 
> Corporate tax exemption for Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs, 3/4 are fossil fuel companies)
> Deduction for intangible drilling costs
> Lost/reduced royalties from leasing of federal lands for onshore and offshore drilling
> Percentage depletion allowance –independent producers can deduct 14-15% of large investment costs from income taxes*
> Domestic manufacturing deduction – allows oil producers to claim a tax break intended for U.S. manufacturers to prevent job outsourcing*
> Carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration credit – tax credit of $20 per ton of CO2 sequestered (largely from coal plants); $10 per ton for CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery
> Exemption from passive loss limitation – exempts investors from limits on deductions of losses from oil and gas activities in which they are not directly involved
> Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
> Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
> 
> Over half a trillion has gone into fossil fuels since 1950.



*Corporate tax exemption for Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs, 3/4 are fossil fuel companies)
*
The partners pay the tax.

*Deduction for intangible drilling costs*

All businesses get to deduct their expenses.

*Lost/reduced royalties from leasing of federal lands for onshore and offshore drilling*

So raise the royalties, if you feel 12.5% or 18.75% isn't enough.

*Percentage depletion allowance*

Like depreciation.

*Domestic manufacturing deduction – allows oil producers to claim a tax break intended for U.S. manufacturers to prevent job outsourcing**

Not exclusive to fossil fuels.

*Carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration credit – tax credit of $20 per ton of CO2 sequestered (largely from coal plants); $10 per ton for CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery*

Eliminate all the "green" subsidy waste of money rules.

*Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)*

Not exclusive to fossil fuels.

*Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)*

Eliminate all the "green" subsidy waste of money rules.

*Over half a trillion has gone into fossil fuels since 1950*

How much was actually a subsidy versus typical business deductions?
Based on your list, very little.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides building the rail systems to remote area's to the cost of what would be hundreds of billions today to provide the infrastructure to make coal/oil usable...
> 
> Maybe you've been under a rock, but Trump has been touting how he'd do it with increasing use of public lands for oil/gas (remember those lease rates haven't gone up since 1987, so yes, they are getting a HECK of a deal there).
> 
> SInce you seem to be rather uneducated on the subject, I'll give you a few to look at:
> 
> Corporate tax exemption for Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs, 3/4 are fossil fuel companies)
> Deduction for intangible drilling costs
> Lost/reduced royalties from leasing of federal lands for onshore and offshore drilling
> Percentage depletion allowance –independent producers can deduct 14-15% of large investment costs from income taxes*
> Domestic manufacturing deduction – allows oil producers to claim a tax break intended for U.S. manufacturers to prevent job outsourcing*
> Carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration credit – tax credit of $20 per ton of CO2 sequestered (largely from coal plants); $10 per ton for CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery
> Exemption from passive loss limitation – exempts investors from limits on deductions of losses from oil and gas activities in which they are not directly involved
> Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
> Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
> 
> Over half a trillion has gone into fossil fuels since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Corporate tax exemption for Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs, 3/4 are fossil fuel companies)
> *
> The partners pay the tax.
> 
> *Deduction for intangible drilling costs*
> 
> All businesses get to deduct their expenses.
> 
> *Lost/reduced royalties from leasing of federal lands for onshore and offshore drilling*
> 
> So raise the royalties, if you feel 12.5% or 18.75% isn't enough.
> 
> *Percentage depletion allowance*
> 
> Like depreciation.
> 
> *Domestic manufacturing deduction – allows oil producers to claim a tax break intended for U.S. manufacturers to prevent job outsourcing**
> 
> Not exclusive to fossil fuels.
> 
> *Carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration credit – tax credit of $20 per ton of CO2 sequestered (largely from coal plants); $10 per ton for CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery*
> 
> Eliminate all the "green" subsidy waste of money rules.
> 
> *Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)*
> 
> Not exclusive to fossil fuels.
> 
> *Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)*
> 
> Eliminate all the "green" subsidy waste of money rules.
> 
> *Over half a trillion has gone into fossil fuels since 1950*
> 
> How much was actually a subsidy versus typical business deductions?
> Based on your list, very little.
Click to expand...


Yup, all things that the oil industry gets specifically because it's in the oil industry.  

Kinda funny how you, rather than tally the savings this law or that law has given them and add it up for a total, you try to pass it off as nothing.   I'll remember that.  

"all business get to deduct their expenses"  NO.  Only oil companies can deduct all costs associated with searching and drilling for oil.  

Percentage depletion allowance is like depreciation, but a LOT higher rate and ONLY for oil/mineral rights.  



Like you agree though, renewables is a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides building the rail systems to remote area's to the cost of what would be hundreds of billions today to provide the infrastructure to make coal/oil usable...
> 
> Maybe you've been under a rock, but Trump has been touting how he'd do it with increasing use of public lands for oil/gas (remember those lease rates haven't gone up since 1987, so yes, they are getting a HECK of a deal there).
> 
> SInce you seem to be rather uneducated on the subject, I'll give you a few to look at:
> 
> Corporate tax exemption for Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs, 3/4 are fossil fuel companies)
> Deduction for intangible drilling costs
> Lost/reduced royalties from leasing of federal lands for onshore and offshore drilling
> Percentage depletion allowance –independent producers can deduct 14-15% of large investment costs from income taxes*
> Domestic manufacturing deduction – allows oil producers to claim a tax break intended for U.S. manufacturers to prevent job outsourcing*
> Carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration credit – tax credit of $20 per ton of CO2 sequestered (largely from coal plants); $10 per ton for CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery
> Exemption from passive loss limitation – exempts investors from limits on deductions of losses from oil and gas activities in which they are not directly involved
> Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
> Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
> 
> Over half a trillion has gone into fossil fuels since 1950.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Corporate tax exemption for Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs, 3/4 are fossil fuel companies)
> *
> The partners pay the tax.
> 
> *Deduction for intangible drilling costs*
> 
> All businesses get to deduct their expenses.
> 
> *Lost/reduced royalties from leasing of federal lands for onshore and offshore drilling*
> 
> So raise the royalties, if you feel 12.5% or 18.75% isn't enough.
> 
> *Percentage depletion allowance*
> 
> Like depreciation.
> 
> *Domestic manufacturing deduction – allows oil producers to claim a tax break intended for U.S. manufacturers to prevent job outsourcing**
> 
> Not exclusive to fossil fuels.
> 
> *Carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration credit – tax credit of $20 per ton of CO2 sequestered (largely from coal plants); $10 per ton for CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery*
> 
> Eliminate all the "green" subsidy waste of money rules.
> 
> *Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)*
> 
> Not exclusive to fossil fuels.
> 
> *Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)*
> 
> Eliminate all the "green" subsidy waste of money rules.
> 
> *Over half a trillion has gone into fossil fuels since 1950*
> 
> How much was actually a subsidy versus typical business deductions?
> Based on your list, very little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, all things that the oil industry gets specifically because it's in the oil industry.
> 
> Kinda funny how you, rather than tally the savings this law or that law has given them and add it up for a total, you try to pass it off as nothing.   I'll remember that.
> 
> "all business get to deduct their expenses"  NO.  Only oil companies can deduct all costs associated with searching and drilling for oil.
> 
> Percentage depletion allowance is like depreciation, but a LOT higher rate and ONLY for oil/mineral rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you agree though, renewables is a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...


*Yup, all things that the oil industry gets specifically because it's in the oil industry.* 

I know, writing off business expenses. Outrageous! DERP!

*Percentage depletion allowance is like depreciation, but a LOT higher rate*

Why do you feel it's a lot higher? Personally, I think deprecation schedules are bullshit.
100% immediate write-offs should be the rule.

*Only oil companies can deduct all costs associated with searching and drilling for oil.* 

Searching and drilling are typical expenses for an oil company.
Why shouldn't a company get to deduct typical business expenses?

*renewables is a drop in the bucket*

Their contribution to our energy supply is a drop in the bucket.
The government checks they receive are much, much higher than their usefulness.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know, writing off business expenses. Outrageous! DERP!
> 
> *A BUSINESS writing off the normally paid taxes for conducting business if it wasn't for that tax break*
> 
> 
> Why do you feel it's a lot higher? Personally, I think deprecation schedules are bullshit.
> 100% immediate write-offs should be the rule.
> 
> *That's great you think it should be different.  But the fact remains this is the break they get. *
> 
> 
> Searching and drilling are typical expenses for an oil company.
> Why shouldn't a company get to deduct typical business expenses?
> 
> *Because the government taxes businesses.  You didn't even look at this did you?   One of the biggest ones and you just play ignorant.   Ok.  The government taxes businesses on profits.  You show your expenses, and your income, and get taxes on the difference if you are in the black.   SPECIFIC for oil companies is IDC's.  Which say you can write off about 60-80% of the costs of drilling wells.   *
> 
> 
> Their contribution to our energy supply is a drop in the bucket.



Kinda interesting.  That "doesn't provide much energy" excuse keeps holding less and less water.   Sure 10 years ago when it was 5% or so.   Now it's 15% of our electricity supplied by renewables.  Just passed nuclear.    You kinda sound like the guy claiming that the horse is never going away, cars will never replace it, and listing all the reasons.


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, writing off business expenses. Outrageous! DERP!
> 
> *A BUSINESS writing off the normally paid taxes for conducting business if it wasn't for that tax break*
> 
> 
> Why do you feel it's a lot higher? Personally, I think deprecation schedules are bullshit.
> 100% immediate write-offs should be the rule.
> 
> *That's great you think it should be different.  But the fact remains this is the break they get. *
> 
> 
> Searching and drilling are typical expenses for an oil company.
> Why shouldn't a company get to deduct typical business expenses?
> 
> *Because the government taxes businesses.  You didn't even look at this did you?   One of the biggest ones and you just play ignorant.   Ok.  The government taxes businesses on profits.  You show your expenses, and your income, and get taxes on the difference if you are in the black.   SPECIFIC for oil companies is IDC's.  Which say you can write off about 60-80% of the costs of drilling wells.   *
> 
> 
> Their contribution to our energy supply is a drop in the bucket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda interesting.  That "doesn't provide much energy" excuse keeps holding less and less water.   Sure 10 years ago when it was 5% or so.   Now it's 15% of our electricity supplied by renewables.  Just passed nuclear.    You kinda sound like the guy claiming that the horse is never going away, cars will never replace it, and listing all the reasons.
Click to expand...

You're including hyrdo power, which has always been part of our energy production.  Solar and wind are still less than 5%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, writing off business expenses. Outrageous! DERP!
> 
> *A BUSINESS writing off the normally paid taxes for conducting business if it wasn't for that tax break*
> 
> 
> Why do you feel it's a lot higher? Personally, I think deprecation schedules are bullshit.
> 100% immediate write-offs should be the rule.
> 
> *That's great you think it should be different.  But the fact remains this is the break they get. *
> 
> 
> Searching and drilling are typical expenses for an oil company.
> Why shouldn't a company get to deduct typical business expenses?
> 
> *Because the government taxes businesses.  You didn't even look at this did you?   One of the biggest ones and you just play ignorant.   Ok.  The government taxes businesses on profits.  You show your expenses, and your income, and get taxes on the difference if you are in the black.   SPECIFIC for oil companies is IDC's.  Which say you can write off about 60-80% of the costs of drilling wells.   *
> 
> 
> Their contribution to our energy supply is a drop in the bucket.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda interesting.  That "doesn't provide much energy" excuse keeps holding less and less water.   Sure 10 years ago when it was 5% or so.   Now it's 15% of our electricity supplied by renewables.  Just passed nuclear.    You kinda sound like the guy claiming that the horse is never going away, cars will never replace it, and listing all the reasons.
Click to expand...


*A BUSINESS writing off the normally paid taxes for conducting business if it wasn't for that tax break*

I agree, solar and wind wouldn't sell nearly the equipment they do, without the government writing checks to their customers. And even with that, they aren't very profitable.


*That's great you think it should be different.  But the fact remains this is the break they get. *

Yes, they get to write off the depletion of the mineral they're extracting. Very similar to depreciation.
Let me know when you find proof of your claim that it's a lot higher.

*Because the government taxes businesses.  You didn't even look at this did you? 
*
Yes, the government taxes business. Business gets to deduct expenses. Exploration is an expense.
Drilling is an expense. Why shouldn't these expenses be deductible, like any other expense?

*One of the biggest ones 
*
It's important that businesses can deduct their expenses, especially the big ones.

*SPECIFIC for oil companies is IDC's.  Which say you can write off about 60-80% of the costs of drilling wells. 
*
Google doesn't drill for oil, they shouldn't get to deduct IDCs that they don't incur.
Exxon does drill, they should get to deduct IDCs.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> You're including hyrdo power, which has always been part of our energy production.  Solar and wind are still less than 5%.
> 
> View attachment 143648




Yes solar is green energy...  and nice post there.  

Granted this topic was on wind and solar, which are used for the electric grid.  I've never once claimed anything about the use of wind powered cars and planes.   Why would you go to that topic instead now?   Oh, wait.  Because if you move from the topic of providing energy for the power grid to energy as a whole you can make a chart look better.    Never mind, I see why you are bringing in irrelevant information here, it helps your point and rather than make an informed statement, you'd rather use disinformation (unless you really thought I was talking about the hydroelectric jet lol).....   Got it.  

Next time if you want to lie, make it clear that you are lying.  It saves time.  Or if you really thought the topic was on our wind powered cars, let me know.  


I'm actually all for this by the way.   Where I live in Kansas, it's providing American jobs... And we are working on a deal to start charging Californians to buy our energy.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Google doesn't drill for oil, they shouldn't get to deduct IDCs that they don't incur.
> Exxon does drill, they should get to deduct IDCs.



So wait... you are literally saying we can't count the subsidies that only affect oil and gas when talking about subsidies that oil and gas get?    

IE.  Shell Corporation doesn't spend money to make more efficient renewable energies, they shouldn't get to deduct the tax credits that they don't incur.   Vestas does, so they should.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google doesn't drill for oil, they shouldn't get to deduct IDCs that they don't incur.
> Exxon does drill, they should get to deduct IDCs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wait... you are literally saying we can't count the subsidies that only affect oil and gas when talking about subsidies that oil and gas get?
> 
> IE.  Shell Corporation doesn't spend money to make more efficient renewable energies, they shouldn't get to deduct the tax credits that they don't incur.   Vestas does, so they should.
Click to expand...

*
you are literally saying we can't count the subsidies that only affect oil and gas*

I am literally saying that writing off expenses that are only incurred by oil and gas companies isn't a subsidy.
*
Shell Corporation doesn't spend money to make more efficient renewable energies, they shouldn't get to deduct the tax credits that they don't incur.*

No company should get to deduct expenses they don't incur.

*Vestas does, so they should.*

They should deduct any legitimate expenses they incur. Even IDCs.


----------



## there4eyeM

What is unsustainable is the absurd American consumption of/thirst for 'energy'.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> you are literally saying we can't count the subsidies that only affect oil and gas*
> 
> I am literally saying that writing off expenses that are only incurred by oil and gas companies isn't a subsidy.
> *
> Shell Corporation doesn't spend money to make more efficient renewable energies, they shouldn't get to deduct the tax credits that they don't incur.*
> 
> No company should get to deduct expenses they don't incur.
> 
> *Vestas does, so they should.*
> 
> They should deduct any legitimate expenses they incur. Even IDCs.



I think we actually agree here.   Renewables largest "subsidy" is just that.  Tax writeoffs that only affect their business.  Same for you and me.   Writing off the expense of a green car or solar roof on taxes that are only incurred by those that by a green car or solar roof isn't a subsidy.  You want the same credit, buy the same thing, nobody else gets to deduct that if they don't incur the cost of buying it.


I mean the ARRA and stimulus funding is long gone.  That all dried up a few years ago.  Basically it's tax credits now.   I mean 8 years ago when we had the stimulus packages out there, wind was something like 6 cents a KW/HR in subsidies.  That's down to around 1 cent now and that almost entirely tax credit based. 

Solar is still up there and that's the one I am questionable on.  I mean it's nowhere near as high as kicking off hydroelectric, coal or nuclear.   But wind is doing really well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> you are literally saying we can't count the subsidies that only affect oil and gas*
> 
> I am literally saying that writing off expenses that are only incurred by oil and gas companies isn't a subsidy.
> *
> Shell Corporation doesn't spend money to make more efficient renewable energies, they shouldn't get to deduct the tax credits that they don't incur.*
> 
> No company should get to deduct expenses they don't incur.
> 
> *Vestas does, so they should.*
> 
> They should deduct any legitimate expenses they incur. Even IDCs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we actually agree here.   Renewables largest "subsidy" is just that.  Tax writeoffs that only affect their business.  Same for you and me.   Writing off the expense of a green car or solar roof on taxes that are only incurred by those that by a green car or solar roof isn't a subsidy.  You want the same credit, buy the same thing, nobody else gets to deduct that if they don't incur the cost of buying it.
> 
> 
> I mean the ARRA and stimulus funding is long gone.  That all dried up a few years ago.  Basically it's tax credits now.   I mean 8 years ago when we had the stimulus packages out there, wind was something like 6 cents a KW/HR in subsidies.  That's down to around 1 cent now and that almost entirely tax credit based.
> 
> Solar is still up there and that's the one I am questionable on.  I mean it's nowhere near as high as kicking off hydroelectric, coal or nuclear.   But wind is doing really well.
Click to expand...

*
Writing off the expense of a green car or solar roof on taxes that are only incurred by those that by a green car or solar roof isn't a subsidy.* 

That is a subsidy. Unless all car purchases and roof purchases receive the same write off.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> Writing off the expense of a green car or solar roof on taxes that are only incurred by those that by a green car or solar roof isn't a subsidy.*
> 
> That is a subsidy. Unless all car purchases and roof purchases receive the same write off.



Why?  not all energy gets the same tax credits.   And Oil and gas we've both shown gets tax credits specific to their industry only.  

You build an oil well and I build a windmill, you get tax credits that I don't because while our two pieces of equipment provide the same function, they are technically different, so different credits go to each of us.  

You buy a gasoline automobile, you don't get a tax credit.  I buy an electric car, I do.  *Nobody should have to deduct expenses they didn't incur. *  You didn't incur any expenses for a battery powered vehicle.  Only I did.


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Google doesn't drill for oil, they shouldn't get to deduct IDCs that they don't incur.
> Exxon does drill, they should get to deduct IDCs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wait... you are literally saying we can't count the subsidies that only affect oil and gas when talking about subsidies that oil and gas get?
> 
> IE.  Shell Corporation doesn't spend money to make more efficient renewable energies, they shouldn't get to deduct the tax credits that they don't incur.   Vestas does, so they should.
Click to expand...


Deductions for business expenses aren't subsidies.  Businesses have always been allowed to deduct expenses.  That's part of how you define "income."  The federal government is allowed to tax income.  Income is defined as revenue - expenses = income.  You're trying to claim that the 2nd part of that equation is some kind of subsidy for the oil industry.  It's not.  You only proved that you're ignorant and gullible.


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Writing off the expense of a green car or solar roof on taxes that are only incurred by those that by a green car or solar roof isn't a subsidy.*
> 
> That is a subsidy. Unless all car purchases and roof purchases receive the same write off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  not all energy gets the same tax credits.   And Oil and gas we've both shown gets tax credits specific to their industry only.
> 
> You build an oil well and I build a windmill, you get tax credits that I don't because while our two pieces of equipment provide the same function, they are technically different, so different credits go to each of us.
> 
> You buy a gasoline automobile, you don't get a tax credit.  I buy an electric car, I do.  *Nobody should have to deduct expenses they didn't incur. *  You didn't incur any expenses for a battery powered vehicle.  Only I did.
Click to expand...


Whatever your business buys is an expense that they can deduct from their revenue, whether it's an electric car or a gasoline car.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> Deductions for business expenses aren't subsidies.  Businesses have always been allowed to deduct expenses.  That's part of how you define "income."  The federal government is allowed to tax income.  Income is defined as revenue - expenses = income.  You're trying to claim that the 2nd part of that equation is some kind of subsidy for the oil industry.  It's not.  You only proved that you're ignorant and gullible.



Not that.  Oil gets to deduct the cost of a new well THAT YEAR, rather than over the lifetime of the project (in other industries).  A HUGE bonus to lowering taxable income.  

Same with the deductions for the depletions.  15% is allowed.  You can pump 2% of that well and deduct 15% of the oil EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T USE IT.  And you can deduct MORE than the costs of acquiring and developing the property.    


You can see how these would have a huge effect on taxable income.  Those rules alone cost BILLIONS that other taxpayers have to make up for.  

And I am not claiming these are tax breaks, the oil industry was when they lobbied for them.   Their senators were when they fought for them.  That's why they want them.   That's why they fight to ensure they continue.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Writing off the expense of a green car or solar roof on taxes that are only incurred by those that by a green car or solar roof isn't a subsidy.*
> 
> That is a subsidy. Unless all car purchases and roof purchases receive the same write off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  not all energy gets the same tax credits.   And Oil and gas we've both shown gets tax credits specific to their industry only.
> 
> You build an oil well and I build a windmill, you get tax credits that I don't because while our two pieces of equipment provide the same function, they are technically different, so different credits go to each of us.
> 
> You buy a gasoline automobile, you don't get a tax credit.  I buy an electric car, I do.  *Nobody should have to deduct expenses they didn't incur. *  You didn't incur any expenses for a battery powered vehicle.  Only I did.
Click to expand...


*Why? not all energy gets the same tax credits.*

Sure. A wind company deducts employee expenses and materials used to create turbines. An oil company deducts employee expenses and material to build rigs. And those are deductions, not tax credits.

*You buy a gasoline automobile, you don't get a tax credit.  I buy an electric car, I do*

That's a subsidy to the electric car company.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> Whatever your business buys is an expense that they can deduct from their revenue, whether it's an electric car or a gasoline car.



No.  That's why they have SPECIFIC tax codes ONLY for reductions that the oil industry gets and others don't.   If you think it's all the same, why not repeal those ones that focus specifically on the oil industry and go with just taxing profits?  

Other companies can't write off a 15% loss when they only lost 2%..  

That's the entire point here.   



Look, you really are trying to say that oil industry spends hundreds of millions lobbying these tax bills but somehow never get anything out of it???  Come on...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deductions for business expenses aren't subsidies.  Businesses have always been allowed to deduct expenses.  That's part of how you define "income."  The federal government is allowed to tax income.  Income is defined as revenue - expenses = income.  You're trying to claim that the 2nd part of that equation is some kind of subsidy for the oil industry.  It's not.  You only proved that you're ignorant and gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that.  Oil gets to deduct the cost of a new well THAT YEAR, rather than over the lifetime of the project (in other industries).  A HUGE bonus to lowering taxable income.
> 
> Same with the deductions for the depletions.  15% is allowed.  You can pump 2% of that well and deduct 15% of the oil EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T USE IT.  And you can deduct MORE than the costs of acquiring and developing the property.
> 
> 
> You can see how these would have a huge effect on taxable income.  Those rules alone cost BILLIONS that other taxpayers have to make up for.
> 
> And I am not claiming these are tax breaks, the oil industry was when they lobbied for them.   Their senators were when they fought for them.  That's why they want them.   That's why they fight to ensure they continue.
Click to expand...


*And you can deduct MORE than the costs of acquiring and developing the property.* 

If that's the case, that is a subsidy.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why? not all energy gets the same tax credits.*
> 
> Sure. A wind company deducts employee expenses and materials used to create turbines. An oil company deducts employee expenses and material to build rigs. And those are deductions, not tax credits.
> 
> *You buy a gasoline automobile, you don't get a tax credit.  I buy an electric car, I do*
> 
> That's a subsidy to the electric car company.




Nope, it's exactly the same as your own example.  Just switched the two sides.  Gas cars aren't made the same was as electric cars, just like oil for electricity isn't made the same way as renewables.  It's the exact same situation.  

And we haven't even gotten to the tax deferment for oil companies.  What are we now?  Biggest 20 have 175 billion in unpaid taxes that they've deferred with an interest rate of 0%.   How much does that one save?  Why don't all industries get that? Can my business just say "we will pay our taxes in 20 years of this same exact amount with no interest".    

Look, it's not even worth it.  The intangible drilling allowance and special percentage depletion allowance are two of the biggest wins for oil that is not shared across all industries.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *And you can deduct MORE than the costs of acquiring and developing the property.*
> 
> If that's the case, that is a subsidy.



It's a subsidy no matter what.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why? not all energy gets the same tax credits.*
> 
> Sure. A wind company deducts employee expenses and materials used to create turbines. An oil company deducts employee expenses and material to build rigs. And those are deductions, not tax credits.
> 
> *You buy a gasoline automobile, you don't get a tax credit.  I buy an electric car, I do*
> 
> That's a subsidy to the electric car company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, it's exactly the same as your own example.  Just switched the two sides.  Gas cars aren't made the same was as electric cars, just like oil for electricity isn't made the same way as renewables.  It's the exact same situation.
> 
> And we haven't even gotten to the tax deferment for oil companies.  What are we now?  Biggest 20 have 175 billion in unpaid taxes that they've deferred with an interest rate of 0%.   How much does that one save?  Why don't all industries get that? Can my business just say "we will pay our taxes in 20 years of this same exact amount with no interest".
> 
> Look, it's not even worth it. The intangible drilling allowance and special percentage depletion allowance are two of the biggest wins for oil that is not shared across all industries.
Click to expand...



*Nope, it's exactly the same as your own example.* 

Both businesses get to deduct the expenses they incur running their business.

*Gas cars aren't made the same was as electric cars, just like oil for electricity isn't made the same way as renewables.*

I agree, gas cars and oil don't get subsidies like solar power, wind power and electric cars do.

Sounds like you don't understand the definition of subsidy.

noun: *subsidy*; plural noun: *subsidies*

*1*.
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
*And we haven't even gotten to the tax deferment for oil companies.  What are we now?  Biggest 20 have 175 billion in unpaid taxes that they've deferred with an interest rate of 0%.  *

Link?

*The intangible drilling allowance and special percentage depletion allowance are two of the biggest wins for oil that is not shared across all industries.*

Mining companies also get to use depletion and rightly so.
Break out the components of intangible drilling allowance and explain why each part should not be deductible.
I'll be happy to discuss in detail.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Both businesses get to deduct the expenses they incur running their business.
> 
> *Yes and oil/gas get specific benefits that increase their tax deductions that other businesses do not receive.  Which you keep saying is a subsidy when Wind or Solar does that.    *
> 
> 
> *I agree, gas cars and oil don't get subsidies like solar power, wind power and electric cars do.*
> 
> They do, just DIFFERENT ones, as we've both stated.
> 
> 
> Sounds like you don't understand the definition of subsidy.
> 
> noun: *subsidy*; plural noun: *subsidies*
> 
> *1*.
> a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> *That's fine.  call it what you want.  If you get told you don't have to pay 1 million in taxes that someone else does, that's not a subsidy by that definition.   *
> 
> Link?
> Tax-Advantaged U.S. Oil and Gas Companies Reap Huge Gains
> 
> Mining companies also get to use depletion and rightly so.
> Break out the components of intangible drilling allowance and explain why each part should not be deductible.
> I'll be happy to discuss in detail.



Mining companies.   OK, you've got one industry on board.   They get the benefit as well.  What other industries can get that kind of deferment?  What other industries can claim their industry equivalent?  Why not just use the normal tax code which covers that?  Why have these specific rules that increase the tax benefits just for this one industry.  Why does oil get these breaks for over 100 years that are specifically written for oil only and other industries don't get the same break?  

You really think Oil and gas industries are the biggest morons in the history of the US don't you?  I mean they spend all this money lobbying for these specific tax breaks for their industry which get them nothing in return.   


Look, I get it, you are sticking with this.   Whatever.  You haven't proven that those tax breaks are given across other industries.   You are just trying to talk in circles now and return the burden of proof to me to prove your side which I will let you do but you know that isn't there.


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever your business buys is an expense that they can deduct from their revenue, whether it's an electric car or a gasoline car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That's why they have SPECIFIC tax codes ONLY for reductions that the oil industry gets and others don't.   If you think it's all the same, why not repeal those ones that focus specifically on the oil industry and go with just taxing profits?
> 
> Other companies can't write off a 15% loss when they only lost 2%..
> 
> That's the entire point here.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you really are trying to say that oil industry spends hundreds of millions lobbying these tax bills but somehow never get anything out of it???  Come on...
Click to expand...


Profits are defined as revenue minus expenses, so you're right back to the problem of defining what legitimate expenses are.  All the laws you are talking about are where the government defines what is legitimate.  Obviously, Drilling a well is an expense.  Should that be treated the same as buying a Caterpillar tractor?  What if it's a dry hole?  Why should the oil company have to expense that over a period of years instead of immediately since it produces no revenue?   These issues get very complicated, which is one reason the tax code is so complex, but your claims of trillions of dollars in "subsidies" is obvious bullshit.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy


Nothing to do with Green; just lousy management strategy.

SunEdison has had an aggressive acquisition history, but those buyouts have left it with $11 billion in debt, Reuters reported.


----------



## anotherlife

Old Rocks said:


> Why in space? We need the energy here on earth. And we can easily get it. Between wind and solar, with grid scale storage, we can more than supply all the energy needs of this planet.


No because they all prove to be unsustainable without non renewable energy backup.  Even at their full capacity they break even only by government subsidies.  

However, engaging in one of the fields of forbidden science, such as beams or wave transport, who knows, it may be transported to earth, from the unlimited supply of space.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Nothing to do with Green; just lousy management strategy.


Nobody knows how to deny reality, science, facts, or the truth like Danny here. Good grief. Daniel - you don't have the _slightest_ concept about "management strategy".

Green energy costs an unimaginable fortune and produces the energy equivalent of a AAA battery. Ergo, it's a product *nobody* wants. I'm not paying $170,000 for solar panels when I'll die long before I'll ever spend $170,000 on my energy bills.

You uneducated progressives would understand that if you understood basic economics and concepts such as ROI.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both businesses get to deduct the expenses they incur running their business.
> 
> *Yes and oil/gas get specific benefits that increase their tax deductions that other businesses do not receive.  Which you keep saying is a subsidy when Wind or Solar does that.    *
> 
> 
> *I agree, gas cars and oil don't get subsidies like solar power, wind power and electric cars do.*
> 
> They do, just DIFFERENT ones, as we've both stated.
> 
> 
> Sounds like you don't understand the definition of subsidy.
> 
> noun: *subsidy*; plural noun: *subsidies*
> 
> *1*.
> a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
> *That's fine.  call it what you want.  If you get told you don't have to pay 1 million in taxes that someone else does, that's not a subsidy by that definition.   *
> 
> Link?
> Tax-Advantaged U.S. Oil and Gas Companies Reap Huge Gains
> 
> Mining companies also get to use depletion and rightly so.
> Break out the components of intangible drilling allowance and explain why each part should not be deductible.
> I'll be happy to discuss in detail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mining companies.   OK, you've got one industry on board.   They get the benefit as well.  What other industries can get that kind of deferment?  What other industries can claim their industry equivalent?  Why not just use the normal tax code which covers that?  Why have these specific rules that increase the tax benefits just for this one industry.  Why does oil get these breaks for over 100 years that are specifically written for oil only and other industries don't get the same break?
> 
> You really think Oil and gas industries are the biggest morons in the history of the US don't you?  I mean they spend all this money lobbying for these specific tax breaks for their industry which get them nothing in return.
> 
> 
> Look, I get it, you are sticking with this.   Whatever.  You haven't proven that those tax breaks are given across other industries.   You are just trying to talk in circles now and return the burden of proof to me to prove your side which I will let you do but you know that isn't there.
Click to expand...


*If you get told you don't have to pay 1 million in taxes that someone else does, that's not a subsidy by that definition.   *

That would be a sum of money granted by the government to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. Subsidy.

*Mining companies. OK, you've got one industry on board. They get the benefit as well. What other industries can get that kind of deferment?*

What other industries buy something, oil field or mine, for instance, and extract a portion (deplete) that purchase over time?

*What other industries can claim their industry equivalent*

Oil company buys a well with a 6 year expected useful life, a farmer buys a combine with a 6 year expected useful life.
They both get to write down their investment over that time.

It's not fair!!! Oil companies don't get to write off farm equipment. LOL!

*Why have these specific rules that increase the tax benefits just for this one industry. *

Specific circumstance, natural resource deposit depleted over time, specific schedule for writing down that depletion for that specific industry.

*You really think Oil and gas industries are the biggest morons in the history of the US don't you?* 

No. I do think people whining about typical tax deductions are pretty stupid though.

*You haven't proven that those tax breaks are given across other industries.*

Why would Google get a depletion allowance? Do they buy a natural resource that is depleted over time?
Why would Facebook write off intangible drilling costs? Zuckie drilling something?


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That would be a sum of money granted by the government to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. Subsidy.
> 
> *THank you.  We agree.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other industries buy something, oil field or mine, for instance, and extract a portion (deplete) that purchase over time?
> 
> *All sorts do. Any resource company does.  Happens with water rights.  My company has plants and equipment that have depreciation schedules that are written off.  Nobody gets that kind of deal that you've shown they make specifically for oil.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Oil company buys a well with a 6 year expected useful life, a farmer buys a combine with a 6 year expected useful life.
> They both get to write down their investment over that time.
> 
> It's not fair!!! Oil companies don't get to write off farm equipment. LOL!
> 
> *Great choice.  Show me that farm depreciation laws that they lobbied for.  Show me that a farmer can buy fertilizer, store it and not even use it, but gets to write it off at a tax exemption as he did use it.   *
> 
> 
> Specific circumstance, natural resource deposit depleted over time, specific schedule for writing down that depletion for that specific industry.
> 
> *And like you say the advantage that they get is better than others.  Thus a subsidy.  Thanks*
> 
> 
> No. I do think people whining about typical tax deductions are pretty stupid though.
> 
> *Not typical.  As you've shown you've been unable to find their counterparts across other industries.  Thus by your definition... a subsidy.  *
> 
> *You haven't proven that those tax breaks are given across other industries.*
> 
> Why would Google get a depletion allowance? Do they buy a natural resource that is depleted over time?
> Why would Facebook write off intangible drilling costs? Zuckie drilling something?
> 
> Google would use the standard tax law, same as facebook.  If they bought a building, they would not get that depreciation deal.  If they bought processors, they would not be able to just write them off unless they were actually using them.   It's a benefit specifically for the oil industry.




You know what.  I don't even know why I am bothering with your circular logic.  Take it up with the Congressional Budget Office that testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that in 2013 alone, fossil fuels got 3.2 billion dollars in subsidies.   Take it up with the actual people that gave them the subsidies that they are full of it and don't know what they are talking about.  

Explain to them how you of all people are in the know moreso than the people who ACTUALLY GRANTED THE SUBSIDIES.


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a sum of money granted by the government to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. Subsidy.
> 
> *THank you.  We agree.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other industries buy something, oil field or mine, for instance, and extract a portion (deplete) that purchase over time?
> 
> *All sorts do. Any resource company does.  Happens with water rights.  My company has plants and equipment that have depreciation schedules that are written off.  Nobody gets that kind of deal that you've shown they make specifically for oil.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Oil company buys a well with a 6 year expected useful life, a farmer buys a combine with a 6 year expected useful life.
> They both get to write down their investment over that time.
> 
> It's not fair!!! Oil companies don't get to write off farm equipment. LOL!
> 
> *Great choice.  Show me that farm depreciation laws that they lobbied for.  Show me that a farmer can buy fertilizer, store it and not even use it, but gets to write it off at a tax exemption as he did use it.   *
> 
> 
> Specific circumstance, natural resource deposit depleted over time, specific schedule for writing down that depletion for that specific industry.
> 
> *And like you say the advantage that they get is better than others.  Thus a subsidy.  Thanks*
> 
> 
> No. I do think people whining about typical tax deductions are pretty stupid though.
> 
> *Not typical.  As you've shown you've been unable to find their counterparts across other industries.  Thus by your definition... a subsidy.  *
> 
> *You haven't proven that those tax breaks are given across other industries.*
> 
> Why would Google get a depletion allowance? Do they buy a natural resource that is depleted over time?
> Why would Facebook write off intangible drilling costs? Zuckie drilling something?
> 
> Google would use the standard tax law, same as facebook.  If they bought a building, they would not get that depreciation deal.  If they bought processors, they would not be able to just write them off unless they were actually using them.   It's a benefit specifically for the oil industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what.  I don't even know why I am bothering with your circular logic.  Take it up with the Congressional Budget Office that testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that in 2013 alone, fossil fuels got 3.2 billion dollars in subsidies.   Take it up with the actual people that gave them the subsidies that they are full of it and don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Explain to them how you of all people are in the know moreso than the people who ACTUALLY GRANTED THE SUBSIDIES.
Click to expand...


They didn't count drilling costs as a "subsidy" as you're doing.  Nor did they count most of the other things you can't as a subsidy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a sum of money granted by the government to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. Subsidy.
> 
> *THank you.  We agree.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other industries buy something, oil field or mine, for instance, and extract a portion (deplete) that purchase over time?
> 
> *All sorts do. Any resource company does.  Happens with water rights.  My company has plants and equipment that have depreciation schedules that are written off.  Nobody gets that kind of deal that you've shown they make specifically for oil.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Oil company buys a well with a 6 year expected useful life, a farmer buys a combine with a 6 year expected useful life.
> They both get to write down their investment over that time.
> 
> It's not fair!!! Oil companies don't get to write off farm equipment. LOL!
> 
> *Great choice.  Show me that farm depreciation laws that they lobbied for.  Show me that a farmer can buy fertilizer, store it and not even use it, but gets to write it off at a tax exemption as he did use it.   *
> 
> 
> Specific circumstance, natural resource deposit depleted over time, specific schedule for writing down that depletion for that specific industry.
> 
> *And like you say the advantage that they get is better than others.  Thus a subsidy.  Thanks*
> 
> 
> No. I do think people whining about typical tax deductions are pretty stupid though.
> 
> *Not typical.  As you've shown you've been unable to find their counterparts across other industries.  Thus by your definition... a subsidy.  *
> 
> *You haven't proven that those tax breaks are given across other industries.*
> 
> Why would Google get a depletion allowance? Do they buy a natural resource that is depleted over time?
> Why would Facebook write off intangible drilling costs? Zuckie drilling something?
> 
> Google would use the standard tax law, same as facebook.  If they bought a building, they would not get that depreciation deal.  If they bought processors, they would not be able to just write them off unless they were actually using them.   It's a benefit specifically for the oil industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what.  I don't even know why I am bothering with your circular logic.  Take it up with the Congressional Budget Office that testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that in 2013 alone, fossil fuels got 3.2 billion dollars in subsidies.   Take it up with the actual people that gave them the subsidies that they are full of it and don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Explain to them how you of all people are in the know moreso than the people who ACTUALLY GRANTED THE SUBSIDIES.
Click to expand...

*
THank you.  We agree.*

You agree that green energy gets actual subsidies? That's great. Glad I could help open your eyes.

*Happens with water rights. 
*
Then what are you whining about?
*
Nobody gets that kind of deal that you've shown they make specifically for oil.*

What oil write offs are unavailable for water drillers?

*Great choice.  Show me that farm depreciation laws that they lobbied for.
*
Farms depreciate equipment like any other industry.

*Google would use the standard tax law, same as facebook.  If they bought a building, they would not get that depreciation deal.*

You think Google and Facebook don't depreciate plant and equipment? LOL!
*
If they bought processors, they would not be able to just write them off unless they were actually using them.*

What are oil companies not using that they get to write off? Be specific.

*Show me that a farmer can buy fertilizer, store it and not even use it, but gets to write it off at a tax exemption as he did use it.*

Show me what oil companies do that's similar to your mythical farmer.

*And like you say the advantage that they get is better than others. *

No, it's exactly the same.

*Not typical. As you've shown you've been unable to find their counterparts across other industries. 
*
Yes, typical. A company could buy logging rights. Write them down as they harvest the trees.
Unless you don't think logging companies should get to deduct their expenses either?

*It's a benefit specifically for the oil industry.*

Only because it's an expense specific to the oil industry.

*Take it up with the Congressional Budget Office that testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that in 2013 alone, fossil fuels got 3.2 billion dollars in subsidies.*

Wait, you're saying someone in Congress doesn't know what a subsidy is? I'm shocked!!!

Look, industries are different.
Mining is different than farming.
Oil drilling is different than Facebook.

If you're going to whine that mineral mining and oil drilling should not get to write off depletion of their assets, I'm going to point out your ignorance.

If you think a check sent to a person simply for buying an electric vehicle isn't a subsidy, I'm going to point out your ignorance.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> They didn't count drilling costs as a "subsidy" as you're doing.  Nor did they count most of the other things you can't as a subsidy.



Again, better deals than their counterparts in other industries got.  Thus a subsidy.  Thus why the Congressional Budget office called it a subsidy.  

According to the study by the Congressional Budget Office, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.  But hey, one industry paying significantly less taxes than another isn't a subsidy right?  Oh wait.  You said it is.  

Take it up with Congress.  Take it up with Jack N Gerard, head of the American Petroleum Institute the largest trade association and lobbyist for the oil and gas industry who said to congress in 2012 that if subsidies were taken away that jobs would be lost and prices would rise.   Take it up with big oil that they needn't worry, those subsidies they are trying to protect... don't actually exist.  They've been spending hundreds of millions lobbying for something they never had in the first place right???  

Explaing to Congress who says that they are giving subsidies to big oil, and big oil who says they need the subsidies congress gives them that those subsidies aren't real.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you're going to whine that mineral mining and oil drilling should not get to write off depletion of their assets, I'm going to point out your ignorance.
> 
> If you think a check sent to a person simply for buying an electric vehicle isn't a subsidy, I'm going to point out your ignorance.



Ok buttercup... last time.  Not saying it's bad that they can just depreciate assets.  I've explained this to you a dozen times, and you've failed to educate yourself on it.   If you are in the tech industry and have an asset that you didn't depreciate in real life but claim you did on your taxes, that is tax fraud. and you are fined or maybe go to jail.  If you do the same thing in the oil industry you are ok due to specific oil industry tax break laws.   



Back in the 20's you didn't know how long your well would last.  No clue.  So the government to help grow the new oil industry passed a law that they could deduct depreciation at a higher rate than other industries (15% here) for forever.   That way if your oil ran out early, you had already recouped most of your tax benefits (getting a tax break for depreciation when you are no longer in business is not good), and if it ran long... congrats, you get a bonus.   So guess what, in 10 years, you've depreciated a 1 million dollar oil field to a value of -$500,000.    

Show me in the corporate tax code where that's offered to every business.   




And of course you had no idea back in the early 1900's if you'd drill and actually hit oil.  Not a problem today, we have much more advanced tech where we don't drill and come up empty.  But back then you'd spend piles of money to drill, come up empty and lose a lot of money.  So in order to help oil become financially viable and push the expansion of the new oil business, they created a subsidy for that.   Tax exempt oil exploration.   Now, not needed, but that tax subsidy stays on the books.   You can expense 70% of your drilling expenses and depreciate the rest.  

Show where year 1 of expansion is ALWAYS tax free in the corporate tax code that affects every business.  Because this has saved BILLIONS in taxes EVERY SINGLE YEAR for over a century for the oil industry.   



These were startup subsidies that never got taken off the books.  Oil has been lobbying to keep those subsidies going since before WWII. And they are so ingrained in your life now, you don't even see them as subsidies, because "that's how it's always been".


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you think a check sent to a person simply for buying an electric vehicle isn't a subsidy, I'm going to point out your ignorance.



I fully do.  The only way it isn't a subsidy is if big oil's similar breaks are not subsidies.  That's you maintaining these aren't subsidies.   I fully believe they are.


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't count drilling costs as a "subsidy" as you're doing.  Nor did they count most of the other things you can't as a subsidy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, better deals than their counterparts in other industries got.  Thus a subsidy.  Thus why the Congressional Budget office called it a subsidy.
Click to expand...


No, they just have costs that are peculiar to their industry.  



Slash said:


> According to the study by the Congressional Budget Office, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.  But hey, one industry paying significantly less taxes than another isn't a subsidy right?  Oh wait.  You said it is.



The CBO is mostly full of shit.  Their predictions about Obamacare were 100% wrong, so why should anyone believe this report?



Slash said:


> Take it up with Congress.  Take it up with Jack N Gerard, head of the American Petroleum Institute the largest trade association and lobbyist for the oil and gas industry who said to congress in 2012 that if subsidies were taken away that jobs would be lost and prices would rise.   Take it up with big oil that they needn't worry, those subsidies they are trying to protect... don't actually exist.  They've been spending hundreds of millions lobbying for something they never had in the first place right???



Did they use the term "subidies?"  I doubt it.  Of course every industry wants tax law to be as favorable to it as possible, and they will fight bitterly to preserve anything that's favorable to it, but that doesn't make it a subsidy.



Slash said:


> Explaing to Congress who says that they are giving subsidies to big oil, and big oil who says they need the subsidies congress gives them that those subsidies aren't real.



Now you're asking me to accept the opinion of a bunch of oily politicians


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think a check sent to a person simply for buying an electric vehicle isn't a subsidy, I'm going to point out your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully do.  The only way it isn't a subsidy is if big oil's similar breaks are not subsidies.  That's you maintaining these aren't subsidies.   I fully believe they are.
Click to expand...

Wrong.  The government doesn't send oil companies a check.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> Wrong.  The government doesn't send oil companies a check.



And you don't get one with the EV tax Credit either.  You get a tax credit, same exact as the gov't has been handing out to the oil industry for over a century.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> Now you're asking me to accept the opinion of a bunch of oily politicians



Or the big oil CEO's that have asked for those subsidies to continue.   Kinda funny.  Both sides admit they are subsidies.  Somehow you know more than either..   Hmmm.


----------



## Slash

Now you are really really digging in the weeds aren't you bigpat...  "if it's not a check it's not really a subsidy"   " If they don't call that huge tax break a subsidy, it's not really a subsidy".  "The costs are peculiar to their industry"   

I think I drew you in far enough there where you are just wallowing in the mud now, just wanted to see how many possible things you could deny were subsidies.   So with a subsidy free oil industry, the following can't be subsidies as oil/coal have all received these.

Industry specific tax breaks
No/Low interest loans
R&D grant money (that was a big one you took away)
Bailout money
Financing for any sort of environmental impact (see Deepwater horizon)
Tax credits to end users (happens with rural electrical and in coal heavy electrical area's for decades)
Any transportation deals/infrastructure building
Any relief for moving to a certain state


Congrats... you played yourself.   So with all that off the table you've effectively written off over 90% of what people consider subsidies for renewables when they say renewable energy is subsidized.   

You've either got a half trillion plus in subsidies for oil/coal the past century to compare against which you deny....  
or some startup costs possibly entirely in the past now is all you can find for green energy, since all the other stuff doesn't count.  

Wow.   Way to prove a point and get that one.  You wiped out EERE, the loans, the tax credits, the bailout money...   What do you even have left to call a subsidy for renewables with your paring down of everything so big oil is subsidy free?   I think you brought that down to just about nothing.  So are you saying that being almost entirely subsidy free and independent, renewable energies are the fastest growing energy source in the USA and that's proof of it's sustainability?  I couldn't have made a stronger argument for that than you just did, but hey, that's your logic, not mine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to whine that mineral mining and oil drilling should not get to write off depletion of their assets, I'm going to point out your ignorance.
> 
> If you think a check sent to a person simply for buying an electric vehicle isn't a subsidy, I'm going to point out your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok buttercup... last time.  Not saying it's bad that they can just depreciate assets.  I've explained this to you a dozen times, and you've failed to educate yourself on it.   If you are in the tech industry and have an asset that you didn't depreciate in real life but claim you did on your taxes, that is tax fraud. and you are fined or maybe go to jail.  If you do the same thing in the oil industry you are ok due to specific oil industry tax break laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 20's you didn't know how long your well would last.  No clue.  So the government to help grow the new oil industry passed a law that they could deduct depreciation at a higher rate than other industries (15% here) for forever.   That way if your oil ran out early, you had already recouped most of your tax benefits (getting a tax break for depreciation when you are no longer in business is not good), and if it ran long... congrats, you get a bonus.   So guess what, in 10 years, you've depreciated a 1 million dollar oil field to a value of -$500,000.
> 
> Show me in the corporate tax code where that's offered to every business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you had no idea back in the early 1900's if you'd drill and actually hit oil.  Not a problem today, we have much more advanced tech where we don't drill and come up empty.  But back then you'd spend piles of money to drill, come up empty and lose a lot of money.  So in order to help oil become financially viable and push the expansion of the new oil business, they created a subsidy for that.   Tax exempt oil exploration.   Now, not needed, but that tax subsidy stays on the books.   You can expense 70% of your drilling expenses and depreciate the rest.
> 
> Show where year 1 of expansion is ALWAYS tax free in the corporate tax code that affects every business.  Because this has saved BILLIONS in taxes EVERY SINGLE YEAR for over a century for the oil industry.
> 
> 
> 
> These were startup subsidies that never got taken off the books.  Oil has been lobbying to keep those subsidies going since before WWII. And they are so ingrained in your life now, you don't even see them as subsidies, because "that's how it's always been".
Click to expand...

*
If you do the same thing in the oil industry you are ok due to specific oil industry tax break laws.* 

How is the reduced amount of oil remaining not equivalent to depreciation?
*
So guess what, in 10 years, you've depreciated a 1 million dollar oil field to a value of -$500,000.* 

You're confused. If you use cost depletion, you can't have an adjusted basis below zero.
If you use percentage depletion, you deduct 15% of your gross income.

Now, about that check you got for buying an EV, did that "sum of money granted by the government" "assist an industry or business" so that the price of YOUR CAR may remain low or competitive?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think a check sent to a person simply for buying an electric vehicle isn't a subsidy, I'm going to point out your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully do.  The only way it isn't a subsidy is if big oil's similar breaks are not subsidies.  That's you maintaining these aren't subsidies.   I fully believe they are.
Click to expand...


The difference between writing off a typical expense related to your core business and getting a government check for buying a certain type of car and not for buying a different type of car is pretty clear.


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're asking me to accept the opinion of a bunch of oily politicians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the big oil CEO's that have asked for those subsidies to continue.   Kinda funny.  Both sides admit they are subsidies.  Somehow you know more than either..   Hmmm.
Click to expand...

They have asked for something to consider. You want to call them "subsidies," but there's no evidence that they are subsidies.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The difference between writing off a typical expense related to your core business and getting a government check for buying a certain type of car and not for buying a different type of car is pretty clear.



Again, you don't get a check, not even a voucher (like the cash for clunker bailout). I don't know why you need to lie to prove your point, but when you lie to make your point sound good, it defeats your argument.     

You get a tax credit.  Same as some people are able to use on electricity that comes from coal/oil that we've had out there for decades to reduce costs to the consumers.   Only difference is the EV one has a limit.   And electric cars aren't the only ones you can get a tax credit on.  By your own definition, not a subsidy (unless you are saying oil and coal are subsidized).


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with Green; just lousy management strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody knows how to deny reality, science, facts, or the truth like Danny here. Good grief. Daniel - you don't have the _slightest_ concept about "management strategy".
> 
> Green energy costs an unimaginable fortune and produces the energy equivalent of a AAA battery. Ergo, it's a product *nobody* wants. I'm not paying $170,000 for solar panels when I'll die long before I'll ever spend $170,000 on my energy bills.
> 
> You uneducated progressives would understand that if you understood basic economics and concepts such as ROI.
Click to expand...

lol.  dude, nobody takes the right wing seriously about microeconomics, either.

_SunEdison has had an aggressive acquisition history, but those buyouts have left it with $11 billion in debt, Reuters reported._


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a sum of money granted by the government to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. Subsidy.
> 
> *THank you.  We agree.  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other industries buy something, oil field or mine, for instance, and extract a portion (deplete) that purchase over time?
> 
> *All sorts do. Any resource company does.  Happens with water rights.  My company has plants and equipment that have depreciation schedules that are written off.  Nobody gets that kind of deal that you've shown they make specifically for oil.  *
> 
> 
> 
> Oil company buys a well with a 6 year expected useful life, a farmer buys a combine with a 6 year expected useful life.
> They both get to write down their investment over that time.
> 
> It's not fair!!! Oil companies don't get to write off farm equipment. LOL!
> 
> *Great choice.  Show me that farm depreciation laws that they lobbied for.  Show me that a farmer can buy fertilizer, store it and not even use it, but gets to write it off at a tax exemption as he did use it.   *
> 
> 
> Specific circumstance, natural resource deposit depleted over time, specific schedule for writing down that depletion for that specific industry.
> 
> *And like you say the advantage that they get is better than others.  Thus a subsidy.  Thanks*
> 
> 
> No. I do think people whining about typical tax deductions are pretty stupid though.
> 
> *Not typical.  As you've shown you've been unable to find their counterparts across other industries.  Thus by your definition... a subsidy.  *
> 
> *You haven't proven that those tax breaks are given across other industries.*
> 
> Why would Google get a depletion allowance? Do they buy a natural resource that is depleted over time?
> Why would Facebook write off intangible drilling costs? Zuckie drilling something?
> 
> Google would use the standard tax law, same as facebook.  If they bought a building, they would not get that depreciation deal.  If they bought processors, they would not be able to just write them off unless they were actually using them.   It's a benefit specifically for the oil industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what.  I don't even know why I am bothering with your circular logic.  Take it up with the Congressional Budget Office that testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that in 2013 alone, fossil fuels got 3.2 billion dollars in subsidies.   Take it up with the actual people that gave them the subsidies that they are full of it and don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Explain to them how you of all people are in the know moreso than the people who ACTUALLY GRANTED THE SUBSIDIES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't count drilling costs as a "subsidy" as you're doing.  Nor did they count most of the other things you can't as a subsidy.
Click to expand...




> First of all, the data Murray cites confirms that the coal industry receives over $1 billion in subsidies for electricity production alone. From the CNBC article Murray referenced:
> 
> In 2013, electricity production and federal utilities that rely on coal received $1.08 billion in direct cash outlays through federal programs, tax benefits, research and development funding, loans and guarantees, the EIA found.
> 
> That’s half of the $2 billion that Murray ridiculed Tesla for “receiving.” But keep in mind that Tesla didn’t get any such direct cash outlays, but rather the American car buyers that choose to buy a Tesla or any other electric vehicle receive this cash.
> --https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/11/24/taking-more-comprehensive-look-coal-subsidies



Why sink public funds into fossil fuels?  That money would be better spent on a Manhattan Project for fusion (an energy with a future).


----------



## Slash

How is the reduced amount of oil remaining not equivalent to depreciation?

*Because of how the oil industry got their tax laws written.  They can pump 2% of their oil from a well, but take the tax writeoff for a depreciation of 15%.  That's tax fraud without that specific oil industry law in place.  *

You're confused. If you use cost depletion, you can't have an adjusted basis below zero 
If you use percentage depletion, you deduct 15% of your gross income. 

*Now you are catching on.   That's how it should be right?  Build a plant for 20 million.  Expected life is 20 years, you deduct a million a year off your income for 20 years to get to 100% and you are done.  If the plant runs for 30 years, you can't do any further deductions after you've recouped your tax credits for the 20 million dollar initial investment.  You can't recoup more than your investment.  If you did, that would be tax fraud. 

Oil industry, you find a well with expected life of 20 years to pump it out.  You can deduct it ALL in 7 years. You can then keep deducting 15% of the cost of that well per annum in perpetuity.   It's a really sweet deal that oil has spent hundreds of millions to keep on the books and gotten returns in the billions every year for a century.  They can deduct more than the investment.  It was intended as a subsidy to get the petroleum industry up and going with the explosion of use of the automobile.  *


----------



## danielpalos

Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference between writing off a typical expense related to your core business and getting a government check for buying a certain type of car and not for buying a different type of car is pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you don't get a check, not even a voucher (like the cash for clunker bailout). I don't know why you need to lie to prove your point, but when you lie to make your point sound good, it defeats your argument.
> 
> You get a tax credit.  Same as some people are able to use on electricity that comes from coal/oil that we've had out there for decades to reduce costs to the consumers.   Only difference is the EV one has a limit.   And electric cars aren't the only ones you can get a tax credit on.  By your own definition, not a subsidy (unless you are saying oil and coal are subsidized).
Click to expand...

*
Again, you don't get a check...You get a tax credit. *

A tax credit is different than a government check in the following ways.

1)
2)
3)

LOL!

*And electric cars aren't the only ones you can get a tax credit on.*

Cool! Which other cars are being subsidized?

*By your own definition, not a subsidy*

Is the credit a "sum of money granted by the government" and does it  "assist an industry or business" so that the "price of an EV may remains low or competitive"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> How is the reduced amount of oil remaining not equivalent to depreciation?
> 
> *Because of how the oil industry got their tax laws written.  They can pump 2% of their oil from a well, but take the tax writeoff for a depreciation of 15%.  That's tax fraud without that specific oil industry law in place.  *
> 
> You're confused. If you use cost depletion, you can't have an adjusted basis below zero
> If you use percentage depletion, you deduct 15% of your gross income.
> 
> *Now you are catching on.   That's how it should be right?  Build a plant for 20 million.  Expected life is 20 years, you deduct a million a year off your income for 20 years to get to 100% and you are done.  If the plant runs for 30 years, you can't do any further deductions after you've recouped your tax credits for the 20 million dollar initial investment.  You can't recoup more than your investment.  If you did, that would be tax fraud.
> 
> Oil industry, you find a well with expected life of 20 years to pump it out.  You can deduct it ALL in 7 years. You can then keep deducting 15% of the cost of that well per annum in perpetuity.   It's a really sweet deal that oil has spent hundreds of millions to keep on the books and gotten returns in the billions every year for a century.  They can deduct more than the investment.  It was intended as a subsidy to get the petroleum industry up and going with the explosion of use of the automobile.  *



* They can pump 2% of their oil from a well, but take the tax writeoff for a depreciation of 15%.
*
No. They can deduct 15% of income on that 2% of oil. Less oil, less income, 15% of less is less.

*Oil industry, you find a well with expected life of 20 years to pump it out.  You can deduct it ALL in 7 years. You can then keep deducting 15% of the cost of that well per annum in perpetuity.
*
Unless you have a link to back up this claim, I'm going to call BS.

*They can deduct more than the investment.
*
Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.




DERP!


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DERP!
Click to expand...

Only the right wing, never gets it.  Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing, never gets it.  Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.
Click to expand...


Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing, never gets it.  Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.
Click to expand...

Market based proof?  The right wing still has nothing but vapor ware instead of any fine capital plans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing, never gets it.  Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market based proof?  The right wing still has nothing but vapor ware instead of any fine capital plans.
Click to expand...


*Market based proof?*

What other proof is there?
There could be a more economically ignorant President than Obama.....one day, but it's unlikely.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil fuels can Only get more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DERP!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the right wing, never gets it.  Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market based proof?  The right wing still has nothing but vapor ware instead of any fine capital plans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Market based proof?*
> 
> What other proof is there?
> There could be a more economically ignorant President than Obama.....one day, but it's unlikely.
Click to expand...

Except, nothing but repeal is worse.  Only the laissez-fair, right wing, does that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DERP!
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing, never gets it.  Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market based proof?  The right wing still has nothing but vapor ware instead of any fine capital plans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Market based proof?*
> 
> What other proof is there?
> There could be a more economically ignorant President than Obama.....one day, but it's unlikely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, nothing but repeal is worse.  Only the laissez-fair, right wing, does that.
Click to expand...


Obama couldn't repeal supply and demand.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the right wing, never gets it.  Nothing but repeal regarding the laws of demand and supply means the right wing has nothing but vapor ware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite Obama's ignorance, supply and demand still works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market based proof?  The right wing still has nothing but vapor ware instead of any fine capital plans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Market based proof?*
> 
> What other proof is there?
> There could be a more economically ignorant President than Obama.....one day, but it's unlikely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except, nothing but repeal is worse.  Only the laissez-fair, right wing, does that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama couldn't repeal supply and demand.
Click to expand...

democrats are more willing to simply use capitalism, for _all_ of its worth; the right wing is still too fond of their socialism on a national basis.


----------



## danielpalos

End the drug war, right wingers.  Nothing but repeal is, right up y'alls alley.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> lol.  dude, nobody takes the right wing seriously about microeconomics, either.


Everybody takes us seriously on economics - that's why the American people turned to us after you Dumbocrats ran the entire economy into the ground.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> democrats are more willing to simply use capitalism, for _all_ of its worth


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> End the drug war, right wingers.  Nothing but repeal is, right up y'alls alley.


End the drug war, Dumbocrats. Encouraging and legalizing chemicals (along with promiscuity, immortality, and corruption) is right up "y'alls alley".


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  dude, nobody takes the right wing seriously about microeconomics, either.
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody takes us seriously on economics - that's why the American people turned to us after you Dumbocrats ran the entire economy into the ground.
Click to expand...

y'all only won the bigotry and stereotype vote.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> End the drug war, right wingers.  Nothing but repeal is, right up y'alls alley.
> 
> 
> 
> End the drug war, Dumbocrats. Encouraging and legalizing chemicals (along with promiscuity, immortality, and corruption) is right up "y'alls alley".
Click to expand...

Only the right wing claims to be for, "smaller government" while establishing, "bigger government".   Isn't there a religious technical term for that?


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is the credit a "sum of money granted by the government" and does it  "assist an industry or business" so that the "price of an EV may remains low or competitive"?



SO these tax credits I've shown you for oil, sums of money granted by the government, intended to keep the price of oil exploration and digging low and competitive are subsidies or not?   

Look, I'm only using your logic here.   Rural energy subsidies have been around for decades.   Like you say, green energy is negligible for almost the entirety of those handouts.   A Sum of money granted by the government that assists the fossil fuels industry so the price of electricity can remain low.   


Either it's a subsidy or it isn't.  You say that isn't.  SO EV's arent'.   

And you ask about subsidies on cars.   Were you alive 8 years ago for the bailouts?   For Cash for Clunkers?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the credit a "sum of money granted by the government" and does it  "assist an industry or business" so that the "price of an EV may remains low or competitive"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO these tax credits I've shown you for oil, sums of money granted by the government, intended to keep the price of oil exploration and digging low and competitive are subsidies or not?
> 
> Look, I'm only using your logic here.   Rural energy subsidies have been around for decades.   Like you say, green energy is negligible for almost the entirety of those handouts.   A Sum of money granted by the government that assists the fossil fuels industry so the price of electricity can remain low.
> 
> 
> Either it's a subsidy or it isn't.  You say that isn't.  SO EV's arent'.
> 
> And you ask about subsidies on cars.   Were you alive 8 years ago for the bailouts?   For Cash for Clunkers?
Click to expand...

*
SO these tax credits I've shown you for oil,*

Writing off a business expense is not a tax credit.

*sums of money granted by the government, intended to keep the price of oil exploration and digging low*

If I spend a bunch of money and drill a dry hole, allowing me to deduct the expense of drilling doesn't help me.
I can only deduct expenses from revenue. The government gets no tax from me, I have no profit, the deduction cost them nothing.

You buy an EV, you get a check from the government. Doesn't matter if Tesla loses money, you get a check.

*Rural energy subsidies have been around for decades.*

Yes, paying an energy company to provide in a rural area is a subsidy.

*A Sum of money granted by the government that assists the fossil fuels industry so the price of electricity can remain low.* 

Yes, that's a subsidy to the rural consumer.

*For Cash for Clunkers?*

One of Obama's dumber ideas. And that's saying a lot!


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *
> SO these tax credits I've shown you for oil,*
> 
> Writing off a business expense is not a tax credit.
> 
> *sums of money granted by the government, intended to keep the price of oil exploration and digging low*
> 
> If I spend a bunch of money and drill a dry hole, allowing me to deduct the expense of drilling doesn't help me.
> I can only deduct expenses from revenue. The government gets no tax from me, I have no profit, the deduction cost them nothing.
> 
> You buy an EV, you get a check from the government. Doesn't matter if Tesla loses money, you get a check.
> 
> *Rural energy subsidies have been around for decades.*
> 
> Yes, paying an energy company to provide in a rural area is a subsidy.
> 
> *A Sum of money granted by the government that assists the fossil fuels industry so the price of electricity can remain low.*
> 
> Yes, that's a subsidy to the rural consumer.
> 
> *For Cash for Clunkers?*
> 
> One of Obama's dumber ideas. And that's saying a lot!



So tesla isn't getting any subsidies either, just the "consumer" which isn't a subsidy.   Got it.  SO no subsidies for green energy at all is your claim now.  

Thanks for proof that green energy is sustainable.  That's all I needed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> SO these tax credits I've shown you for oil,*
> 
> Writing off a business expense is not a tax credit.
> 
> *sums of money granted by the government, intended to keep the price of oil exploration and digging low*
> 
> If I spend a bunch of money and drill a dry hole, allowing me to deduct the expense of drilling doesn't help me.
> I can only deduct expenses from revenue. The government gets no tax from me, I have no profit, the deduction cost them nothing.
> 
> You buy an EV, you get a check from the government. Doesn't matter if Tesla loses money, you get a check.
> 
> *Rural energy subsidies have been around for decades.*
> 
> Yes, paying an energy company to provide in a rural area is a subsidy.
> 
> *A Sum of money granted by the government that assists the fossil fuels industry so the price of electricity can remain low.*
> 
> Yes, that's a subsidy to the rural consumer.
> 
> *For Cash for Clunkers?*
> 
> One of Obama's dumber ideas. And that's saying a lot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tesla isn't getting any subsidies either, just the "consumer" which isn't a subsidy.   Got it.  SO no subsidies for green energy at all is your claim now.
> 
> So tesla isn't getting any subsidies either,Thanks for proof that green energy is sustainable.  That's all I needed.
Click to expand...


I know it's difficult for you to see the difference between giving a subsidy to a few rural customers and giving a subsidy to every EV buyer, but it's there.

*So tesla isn't getting any subsidies either,*

Handing money to their customers makes their product more affordable, more competitive.

*Thanks for proof that green energy is sustainable*

Sustainable? Tell me more.


----------



## Slash

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I know it's difficult for you to see the difference between giving a subsidy to a few rural customers and giving a subsidy to every EV buyer, but it's there.*
> 
> Not to every buyer, just the initial ones.  Unlike the tax credits for customers for electricity, this one has dedicated ending times so it probably won't hit the 70 billion dollar mark that the EIC valued those credits over the lifetime of those tax breaks.
> 
> Based on that, I see Big oil getting what?  45 times the money?   Yeah that's a difference I see.  Do you?
> 
> 
> *Handing money to their customers makes their product more affordable, more competitive.
> *
> Yes it's a tax credit, plenty of other industries get.  This one is specific to a specific industry which is EV's.   Not a subsidy.  You've already proven that.
> 
> 
> *Sustainable? Tell me more.
> *
> No need, you already proved it twice over.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Slash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I know it's difficult for you to see the difference between giving a subsidy to a few rural customers and giving a subsidy to every EV buyer, but it's there.*
> 
> Not to every buyer, just the initial ones.  Unlike the tax credits for customers for electricity, this one has dedicated ending times so it probably won't hit the 70 billion dollar mark that the EIC valued those credits over the lifetime of those tax breaks.
> 
> Based on that, I see Big oil getting what?  45 times the money?   Yeah that's a difference I see.  Do you?
> 
> 
> *Handing money to their customers makes their product more affordable, more competitive.
> *
> Yes it's a tax credit, plenty of other industries get.  This one is specific to a specific industry which is EV's.   Not a subsidy.  You've already proven that.
> 
> 
> *Sustainable? Tell me more.
> *
> No need, you already proved it twice over.
Click to expand...


*Not to every buyer, just the initial ones.* 

Yes, the subsidy goes to new EVs only.

*Based on that, I see Big oil getting what?  45 times the money?* 

Which subsidies did you see amongst the typical business expense write-offs you listed?

*Yes it's a tax credit, plenty of other industries get.*

List a few.

*This one is specific to a specific industry which is EV's*

Yes, the specific tax credit is a subsidy specific to EVs.

*No need, you already proved it twice over.*

The fact that government hands them billions in subsidies isn't proof of sustainability.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  dude, nobody takes the right wing seriously about microeconomics, either.
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody takes us seriously on economics - that's why the American people turned to us after you Dumbocrats ran the entire economy into the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> y'all only won the bigotry and stereotype vote.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha! And that was enough to crush you idiotic progressives in every election across the nation? You clearly have it backwards (intentionally). Stop projecting bruh...


----------



## P@triot

Government "green" energy at its absolute finest... 


> Biomass fuels just mean things like wood pellets. Pellets made out of wood. For every 100 pounds spent on wood pellets, they would receive 160 pounds. It sounds like a great way to save the planet and make a few extra bucks. The “renewable heat incentive” sounded so good that people started buying wood pellets left and right.
> 
> In fact, people started buying biomass boilers and wood pellets just for the money. Some true geniuses were able to make this government subsidy into a personal passive income stream! For example, one farmer expected to make a million pounds *heating an empty shed* and another was on track to make a million and a half *heating a couple empty factories*. This is the way these things always seem to turn out. The government designs a system to force people to help the environment. It winds up costing a fortune and making the environment worse. Classic #GreenFail story.


But wait! It gets even better.... 


> The misuse of this environmental program is now estimated to cost taxpayers upwards of 660 million pounds. And the real kicker is that environmentalists wasted all this cash convincing people that literally lighting trees on fire was somehow environmentally friendly. It’s not. It’s a tree holocaust. And for what? It’s not even good for the environment.
> 
> Wood is absolutely not carbon-neutral. For example, the DRAX power station uses more than a million metric tons of wood pellets from the US every year. The result? The power station produces more than 3% more carbon dioxide than coal and twice as much as natural gas. And you also have to take into account the additional carbon emissions of just getting the wood pellets across the pond from America.


Great job lefties! Vintage progressive fail. Costing tax payers unimaginable fortune while destroying the environment.

Massive #GreenFail Strikes Ireland, Costing Taxpayers Millions


----------



## P@triot

Government "green" energy at its absolute finest... 


> Biomass fuels just mean things like wood pellets. Pellets made out of wood. For every 100 pounds spent on wood pellets, they would receive 160 pounds. It sounds like a great way to save the planet and make a few extra bucks. The “renewable heat incentive” sounded so good that people started buying wood pellets left and right.
> 
> In fact, people started buying biomass boilers and wood pellets just for the money. Some true geniuses were able to make this government subsidy into a personal passive income stream! For example, one farmer expected to make a million pounds *heating an empty shed* and another was on track to make a million and a half *heating a couple empty factories*. This is the way these things always seem to turn out. The government designs a system to force people to help the environment. It winds up costing a fortune and making the environment worse. Classic #GreenFail story.


But wait! It gets even better.... 


> The misuse of this environmental program is now estimated to cost taxpayers upwards of 660 million pounds. And the real kicker is that environmentalists wasted all this cash convincing people that literally lighting trees on fire was somehow environmentally friendly. It’s not. It’s a tree holocaust. And for what? It’s not even good for the environment.
> 
> *Wood is absolutely not carbon-neutral*. For example, the DRAX power station uses more than a million metric tons of wood pellets from the US every year. The result? The power station *produces more than 3% more carbon dioxide than coal and twice as much as natural gas*. And you also have to take into account the additional carbon emissions of just getting the wood pellets across the pond from America.


Great job lefties! Vintage progressive fail. Costing tax payers unimaginable fortune while destroying the environment.

Massive #GreenFail Strikes Ireland, Costing Taxpayers Millions


----------



## danielpalos

Top 10 Renewable Energy Trends to Watch in 2017


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Ukip candidate asks panel debate 'what happens when renewable energy runs out?'

This is where the debate is at in the UK. UKIP being the equivalent nutty right wing party.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tommy Tainant said:


> Ukip candidate asks panel debate 'what happens when renewable energy runs out?'
> 
> This is where the debate is at in the UK. UKIP being the equivalent nutty right wing party.



When there is no wind or sun?
You have to burn fossil fuels.


----------



## danielpalos

Fusion (an energy with a future) is the way to go.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ukip candidate asks panel debate 'what happens when renewable energy runs out?'
> 
> This is where the debate is at in the UK. UKIP being the equivalent nutty right wing party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is no wind or sun?
> You have to burn fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Where are they going ?


----------



## danielpalos

Tommy Tainant said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ukip candidate asks panel debate 'what happens when renewable energy runs out?'
> 
> This is where the debate is at in the UK. UKIP being the equivalent nutty right wing party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is no wind or sun?
> You have to burn fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are they going ?
Click to expand...

A better energy grid should always make sense to, "an empire where the sun never sets."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Tommy Tainant said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ukip candidate asks panel debate 'what happens when renewable energy runs out?'
> 
> This is where the debate is at in the UK. UKIP being the equivalent nutty right wing party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is no wind or sun?
> You have to burn fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are they going ?
Click to expand...


When the wind stops blowing....it doesn't "go" anywhere.
At night, the output of solar panels is pretty low.

Hard to run a high tech economy with fluctuating power levels.


----------



## bripat9643

Agit8r said:


> Fossil fuels are cheap to produce because much of it is practically given away to the companies through federal leases.


They have to pay for the leases, moron, so how is it "given away?"


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ukip candidate asks panel debate 'what happens when renewable energy runs out?'
> 
> This is where the debate is at in the UK. UKIP being the equivalent nutty right wing party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is no wind or sun?
> You have to burn fossil fuels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are they going ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the wind stops blowing....it doesn't "go" anywhere.
> At night, the output of solar panels is pretty low.
> 
> Hard to run a high tech economy with fluctuating power levels.
Click to expand...

*Grid-Scale Electricity Storage Technologies: Global Markets*
Published - Jan 2016| Analyst - Christopher Maara| Code - EGY142

*Report Highlights*
The global market for grid-scale battery storage technologies reached $637 million in 2014. This market is projected to reach nearly $4.0 billion in 2025 from $716 million in 2015 at a compound annual growth rate of 18.7% for the period 2015-2025.

*Report Includes*

An overview of the global markets for grid-scale electricity storage technologies.
Analyses of global market trends, with data from 2014, 2015, estimnates for 2020 and projections of CAGRs through 2025.
A look at factors influencing growth of the market including a growing share of power generation coming from intermittent renewable energy sources, rising commodity prices, and escalating energy peak demand and price in many economies.
Grid-Scale Electricity Storage Technologies: Global Markets: EGY142A | BCC Research

*I think that this report vastly underestimates the market for grid scale batteries in the near future.*


----------



## Old Rocks

*Grid-Scale Battery Storage Is Already Viable In Australia*
May 18th, 2017 by Giles Parkinson 

Originally published on _RenewEconomy_.

Have you heard the line recently that grid-based battery storage is “coming”, but is not quite “commercial”, but might be in a few years time, or even a decade or two?

It’s a common misconception. But if you wondered about the overwhelming response to the recent tenders by South Australia and Victoria for the country’s largest battery storage installations, here’s why: The technology is already in the money.

That, at least, is the estimate of Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst Kobad Bhavnagri, who says that battery storage is not just in the money, it is a long way into the money in states like South Australia, already with a high level of wind and solar and volatile wholesale electricity prices.http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/kobad-storage-viable.jpg





“We’ve seen the price of battery packs as fallen by 75 per cent by 2010, and our calculations show that will fall by a further 75 per cent by 2030,” due to technology innovation and manufacturing scale, Bhavnagri said.

Grid-Scale Battery Storage Is Already Viable In Australia

*Just the beginning.*


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Ukip candidate asks panel debate 'what happens when renewable energy runs out?'
The Green lobby has yet to answer this question.


----------



## Old Rocks

By golly, it is a known fact that the wind will stop blowing and the sun will go out someday, right? LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> By golly, it is a known fact that the wind will stop blowing and the sun will go out someday, right? LOL



The Sun "goes out" every night.
And except for in front of your gob, the wind is known to slow and sometimes stop.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Old Rocks said:


> By golly, it is a known fact that the wind will stop blowing and the sun will go out someday, right? LOL


Its a constant that these hippies dont factor in to their weird calculations.


----------



## Old Rocks

Damned hippies with Phs's in physics, materials science, and engineering. Todd is obviously smarter than all of them put together. Now if he could just figure out simple probability.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Old Rocks said:


> Damned hippies with Phs's in physics, materials science, and engineering. Todd is obviously smarter than all of them put together. Now if he could just figure out simple probability.


Dont hold your breath.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> By golly, it is a known fact that the wind will stop blowing and the sun will go out someday, right? LOL


It's also a "known fact" that these technologies which you have been conditioned to worship, cost millions of dollars to implement and produce the energy equivalence of a fuck'n AAA battery.

In other words - it's idiotic and inefficient. Everything that progressives embrace.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> By golly, it is a known fact that the wind will stop blowing and the sun will go out someday, right? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> It's also a "known fact" that these technologies which you have been conditioned to worship, cost millions of dollars to implement and produce the energy equivalence of a fuck'n AAA battery.
> 
> In other words - it's idiotic and inefficient. Everything that progressives embrace.
Click to expand...

I have also been told that these windmills are a threat to fragile ecologies because they kill birds.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy


They're on the verge of bankruptcy because they tried to monopolize the industry and bit off more than they could chew, not because of the technology.  As usual, you are full of shit.

We are $19 trillion in debt because of these bullshit wars we've been fighting for the last 10 years; our obscene defense budget; corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks; and pieces of shit like Tom Price and Steven Mnuchin wanting to have tax payers pay for their travel expenses.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> They're on the verge of bankruptcy because they tried to monopolize the industry and bit off more than they could chew, not because of the technology.


You've said a shit-ton of really stupid and desperate stuff over the years Billo_Really - but this is by far the dumbest. If they "monopolized the industry" they would be rolling in hundreds of billions of dollars (think Microsoft).

"Bit off more than they could chew"


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> They're on the verge of bankruptcy because they tried to monopolize the industry and *bit off more than they could chew*, not because of the technology.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> We are $19 trillion in debt because of these bullshit wars we've been fighting for the last 10 years


Billo_Really "logic" - we should not have responded when Al Qaeda collapsed the World Trade Center towers because that is a "bullshit war".

Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government and is easily funded. The defense budget is roughly $550 billion. We spend over $1 trillion per year on unconstitutional socialism.

As usual - you speak from a place of astounding ignorance (and greed).


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> We are $19 trillion in debt because of...corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks


That is as absurd as saying it is "social welfare" that we allow you to keep your pc to post on USMB.

Snowflake...that money belongs to the corporations. It is already _theirs_. Allowing them to keep what is already theirs is *not* "welfare", Castro. The fact that you want to believe you deserve it and that they owe it to you is a tribute to your greed and ignorance.

Meanwhile, you cheered Barack Insane Obama wildly for illegally/unconstitutionally  throwing trillions of dollars at GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Solyndra, and more. Actual "corporate welfare" you supported.


----------



## danielpalos

Tommy Tainant said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> By golly, it is a known fact that the wind will stop blowing and the sun will go out someday, right? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> It's also a "known fact" that these technologies which you have been conditioned to worship, cost millions of dollars to implement and produce the energy equivalence of a fuck'n AAA battery.
> 
> In other words - it's idiotic and inefficient. Everything that progressives embrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have also been told that these windmills are a threat to fragile ecologies because they kill birds.
Click to expand...

Smaller could be better.  Smaller fans could placed where birds are an actual nuisance.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> You've said a shit-ton of really stupid and desperate stuff over the years Billo_Really - but this is by far the dumbest. If they "monopolized the industry" they would be rolling in hundreds of billions of dollars (think Microsoft).
> 
> "Bit off more than they could chew"


Now we know why you're not a CEO.

You should try reading your own link before looking like a dumbass?


----------



## danielpalos

The right wing only has a problem with corporate welfare for individuals, not corporations that can afford to hire entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate, if necessary.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> View attachment 150901


If you want to see two men kiss, do it on your own time.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> Billo_Really "logic" - we should not have responded when Al Qaeda collapsed the World Trade Center towers because that is a "bullshit war".
> 
> Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government and is easily funded. The defense budget is roughly $550 billion. We spend over $1 trillion per year on unconstitutional socialism.
> 
> As usual - you speak from a place of astounding ignorance (and greed).


It is a bullshit war.  A bullshit war that has cost us $6 trillion to date. The War on Terrorism is definitely bullshit.  You can't have a war against a tactic.  They didn't call WWII, *"war on blitzkrieg".*


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The right wing only has a problem with corporate welfare for individuals, not corporations *that can afford to hire entire departments* *to* help them conform to rational choice theory or *fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate*, if necessary.


Vintage progressive greed and ignorance. When a corporation has to spend money for "an entire department" dedicated to filling out government forms in triplicate - it takes away the money they need to grow. It takes away the money they need for R&D. It takes away the money they need for expansion. It takes away the money they need for innovation.

And all because people like Daniel Palos are too lazy to start their own damn business and too greedy to go without.


----------



## danielpalos

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 150901
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see two men kiss, do it on your own time.
Click to expand...

I agree; I prefer to see two women kiss.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> That is as absurd as saying it is "social welfare" that we allow you to keep your pc to post on USMB.
> 
> Snowflake...that money belongs to the corporations. It is already _theirs_. Allowing them to keep what is already theirs is *not* "welfare", Castro. The fact that you want to believe you deserve it and that they owe it to you is a tribute to your greed and ignorance.
> 
> Meanwhile, you cheered Barack Insane Obama wildly for illegally/unconstitutionally  throwing trillions of dollars at GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Solyndra, and more. Actual "corporate welfare" you supported.


Allowing *corporations* to create monopolies, then jack up the prices on consumers, is bullshit.

_Four airlines control eighty percent of their market, two drug store chains dominate the pharmacy industry, and Google, Facebook, and Amazon each control nearly all of search, socialmedia, and e-commerce online. The list goes on and on, with almost every industry in America — from agriculture to retail — having become highly concentrated._​
And speculators on Wall Street do not contribute or create anything to the economy as far as real growth.  We need a Franchise Transactions Tax on every share traded in the stock market.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've said a shit-ton of really stupid and desperate stuff over the years Billo_Really - but this is by far the dumbest. If they "monopolized the industry" they would be rolling in hundreds of billions of dollars (think Microsoft).
> 
> "Bit off more than they could chew"
> 
> 
> 
> Now we know why you're not a CEO.
Click to expand...

Now we know why you're a welfare queen...


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 150901
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see two men kiss, do it on your own time.
Click to expand...

Vintage progressive. Sees men laughing at him and immediately turns it into his deviant homosexual desires.


----------



## danielpalos

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really "logic" - we should not have responded when Al Qaeda collapsed the World Trade Center towers because that is a "bullshit war".
> 
> Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government and is easily funded. The defense budget is roughly $550 billion. We spend over $1 trillion per year on unconstitutional socialism.
> 
> As usual - you speak from a place of astounding ignorance (and greed).
> 
> 
> 
> It is a bullshit war.  A bullshit war that has cost us $6 trillion to date. The War on Terrorism is definitely bullshit.  You can't have a war against a tactic.  They didn't call WWII, *"war on blitzkrieg".*
Click to expand...

We need real times of war tax rates enacted by our federal Congress, to prove it is real times of war as proclaimed by Them. 



> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.



If the right wing wants to lower taxes, then there cannot be, real fiscal times of real war.

Just right wing fantasy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 150901
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see two men kiss, do it on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree; I prefer to see two women kiss.
Click to expand...

Nobody cares, dillhole. Keep your perverted shit to yourself or go back to your porn sites.


----------



## Billo_Really

danielpalos said:


> I agree; I prefer to see two women kiss.


I'm down with that!

I want to have a 3-way with Heidi Przblya and Catherine Rampell.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing only has a problem with corporate welfare for individuals, not corporations *that can afford to hire entire departments* *to* help them conform to rational choice theory or *fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate*, if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Vintage progressive greed and ignorance. When a corporation has to spend money for "an entire department" dedicated to filling out government forms in triplicate - it takes away the money they need to grow. It takes away the money they need for R&D. It takes away the money they need for expansion. It takes away the money they need for innovation.
> 
> And all because people like Daniel Palos are too lazy to start their own damn business and too greedy to go without.
Click to expand...

Henry Ford was a real capitalist.  Solid gold for the purposes of this capital discussion.  He did not whine about taxes or regulations.  He came up with a fine capital plan of action.

Only capitalists who are merely, electroplated gold, complain.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 150901
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to see two men kiss, do it on your own time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree; I prefer to see two women kiss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody cares, dillhole. Keep your perverted shit to yourself or go back to your porn sites.
Click to expand...

I don't mind caring, even if I have to share, two girlfriends.


----------



## Billo_Really

danielpalos said:


> We need real times of war tax rates enacted by our federal Congress, to prove it is real times of war as proclaimed by Them.
> 
> 
> 
> If the right wing wants to lower taxes, then there cannot be, real fiscal times of real war.
> 
> Just right wing fantasy.


If I was President, I'd cut that defense budget in half; close all these 1000 bases we have all over the world; and  end these bullshit wars we've been fighting.

That'll cut the deficit.


----------



## Billo_Really

danielpalos said:


> I don't mind caring, even if I have to share, two girlfriends.


Every man should be allowed to have a stable of bitches.

And oral sex is not cheating.


----------



## danielpalos

Billo_Really said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need real times of war tax rates enacted by our federal Congress, to prove it is real times of war as proclaimed by Them.
> 
> 
> 
> If the right wing wants to lower taxes, then there cannot be, real fiscal times of real war.
> 
> Just right wing fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> If I was President, I'd cut that defense budget in half; close all these 1000 bases we have all over the world; and  end these bullshit wars we've been fighting.
> 
> That'll cut the deficit.
Click to expand...

That is only half of the plan; the easy, nothing but repeal part. 

The other half is upgrading our infrastructure in order to promote the general welfare whenever possible and provide for the common defense.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> You can't have a war against a tactic.


   

This is why limp-wristed progressive cowards aren't tasked with defending this nation. You absolutely *can* defend against _any_ tactic, you dimwit.


----------



## danielpalos

Billo_Really said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind caring, even if I have to share, two girlfriends.
> 
> 
> 
> Every man should be allowed to have a stable of bitches.
> 
> And oral sex is not cheating.
Click to expand...

I am working on the, "political angle".  With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have a war against a tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why limp-wristed progressive cowards aren't tasked with defending this nation. You absolutely *can* defend against _any_ tactic, you dimwit.
Click to expand...

To provide for the common defense does not mean to provide for the common offense or general warfare.


----------



## danielpalos

Don't blame the poor, for wasting money in local economies.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind caring, even if I have to share, two girlfriends.
> 
> 
> 
> Every man should be allowed to have a stable of bitches.
> 
> And oral sex is not cheating.
Click to expand...

Typical of misogynist progressive... women are nothing but sexual objects to be abused, mocked, and disrespected. You must be so proud to be on the left Seawytch, jillian, and bodecea


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have a war against a tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why limp-wristed progressive cowards aren't tasked with defending this nation. You absolutely *can* defend against _any_ tactic, you dimwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for the common defense does not mean to provide for the common offense or general warfare.
Click to expand...

Defending against terrorism is defense, junior...


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree; I prefer to see two women kiss.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm down with that!
> 
> I want to have a 3-way with Heidi Przblya and Catherine Rampell.
Click to expand...

^^^This^^^ is why progressives prefer "gender-nuetral" terms. So they can assign female names to the men they fantasize about...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have a war against a tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why limp-wristed progressive cowards aren't tasked with defending this nation. You absolutely *can* defend against _any_ tactic, you dimwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To provide for the common defense does not mean to provide for the common offense or general warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending against terrorism is defense, junior...
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment regarding what is necessary for (nation-)State security.


----------



## danielpalos

I believe the federal doctrine makes a case for national guard forces staying within the US and for State militia staying within a State.

Any militia type force has no business being beyond their "zone of defense", for protocol purposes.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We need real times of war tax rates enacted by our federal Congress, to prove it is real times of war as proclaimed by Them.


Sadly....we live in a perpetual state of "war-time tax rates" because of the lazy, greedy welfare queens like you and Billo. What we really need to do is end the illegal/unconstitutional welfare state and funnel that money to our military.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment...


Yes we do - and sadly - you progressives violate it 24x7.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> I believe the federal doctrine makes a case for national guard forces staying within the US and for State militia staying within a State.


You also believe in unicorns, fairies, and being a burden on society.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need real times of war tax rates enacted by our federal Congress, to prove it is real times of war as proclaimed by Them.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly....we live in a perpetual state of "war-time tax rates" because of the lazy, greedy welfare queens like you and Billo. What we really need to do is end the illegal/unconstitutional welfare state and funnel that money to our military.
Click to expand...

Only in right wing fantasy.  

Stop blaming the poor for getting poorer while the rich get richer.



> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The other half is upgrading our infrastructure in order to promote the general welfare whenever possible...


We've been over this snowflake. The "General Welfare" clause applies _only_ to their 18 enumerated powers. And "infrastructure" is *not* one of those powers.

If the U.S. actually followed your desperate and disgusting attempt to exploit the U.S. Constitution and its citizens - the federal government would have to provide firearms for _everyone_ (that definitely "promotes" the "general welfare"), providing housing for _everyone_, and would have to execute every anti-American progressive in America.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need real times of war tax rates enacted by our federal Congress, to prove it is real times of war as proclaimed by Them.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly....we live in a perpetual state of "war-time tax rates" because of the lazy, greedy welfare queens like you and Billo. What we really need to do is end the illegal/unconstitutional welfare state and funnel that money to our military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing fantasy.
Click to expand...

"Right-wing fantasy" is left-wing code for *reality*.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Stop blaming the poor for getting poorer while the rich get richer.


Every person is responsible for their own destiny and their own results. For instance - it is the poor's fault for electing idiot Dumbocrats who implement failed left-wing policy which always results in the poor getting poorer. Just ask Venezuela.


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are $19 trillion in debt because of these bullshit wars we've been fighting for the last 10 years
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really "logic" - we should not have responded when Al Qaeda collapsed the World Trade Center towers because that is a "bullshit war".
> 
> Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government and is easily funded. The defense budget is roughly $550 billion. We spend over $1 trillion per year on unconstitutional socialism.
> 
> As usual - you speak from a place of astounding ignorance (and greed).
Click to expand...

Idiot. The proper response would have been to go in, take out Bin Laden, and gotten the hell out of that forsaken region. Taking Afghanistan, and leaving Bin Laden alive for seven years made us look weak and like fools. Attacking and occupying Iraq on the basis of lies only made that impression worse. 

You cocksucks that think that it is more patriotic to spend trillions to kill people in other nations, rather than spending that money on our own people's health and welfare are pathetic humans, indeed. And then, of course, you will claim to be Christian. How utterly sad.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Henry Ford was a real capitalist.  Solid gold for the purposes of this capital discussion.  He did not whine about taxes or regulations.


How the _fuck_ do you know that?!? Did you used to sit in his living room with him and discuss that? Were you his assistant that went everywhere with him 24x7? How could you possibly know what he complained about and what he didn't?

How much shit are you going to keep making up on this board?


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> Idiot. The proper response would have been to go in, take out Bin Laden, and gotten the hell out of that forsaken region.


That's what caused the problem in the first place, you ignorant dillhole. 

What good does it do to "take out Bin Laden" when Ayman Al-Zawahri would have just assumed control and continued operations? Only an idiot (_you_) would take out a single individual and leave the rest of the organization, the training camps, and the government allowing all of them to train and operate.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> You cocksucks that think that it is more patriotic to spend trillions to kill people in other nations, rather than spending that money on our own people's health and welfare are pathetic humans,


We don't believe in allowing greedy people like you to be parasites on society in this country. Sorry, not sorry that that pisses you off.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> rather than spending that money on our own people's health and welfare


Your greed and entitlement exemplifies _everything_ that Frédéric Bastiat warned civilization about during the 1800's...


> "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." -Frédéric Bastiat


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a Second Amendment...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do - and sadly - you progressives violate it 24x7.
Click to expand...

Really? I have been a gun owner over 60 years now. Never had anyone try to take any of my guns, or even ask me about them. You "Conservative" assholes are so full of shit.


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cocksucks that think that it is more patriotic to spend trillions to kill people in other nations, rather than spending that money on our own people's health and welfare are pathetic humans,
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe in allowing greedy people like you to be parasites on society in this country. Sorry, not sorry that that pisses you off.
Click to expand...

LOL  You lying little ass. My dd214 state Honorable. On base, in uniform when we stopped those Soviet ships off of Cuba. Presently working as a millwright in a steel mill at 73 years of age. And making one damned good income. Your scuzzy little ass would cave in following me around on a busy day. LOL


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cocksucks that think that it is more patriotic to spend trillions to kill people in other nations, rather than spending that money on our own people's health and welfare are pathetic humans,
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe in allowing greedy people like you to be parasites on society in this country. Sorry, not sorry that that pisses you off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL  You lying little ass. My dd214 state Honorable. On base, in uniform when we stopped those Soviet ships off of Cuba. Presently working as a millwright in a steel mill at 73 years of age. And making one damned good income. Your scuzzy little ass would cave in following me around on a busy day. LOL
Click to expand...

Yeah...you make such a "good living" that you demand that government illegally confiscate what others have and give it to you. Fuck'n little parasite. You're disgusting. And you clearly weren't raised properly. Good parents teach their children that *stealing* is *wrong*.


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cocksucks that think that it is more patriotic to spend trillions to kill people in other nations, rather than spending that money on our own people's health and welfare are pathetic humans,
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe in allowing greedy people like you to be parasites on society in this country. Sorry, not sorry that that pisses you off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL  You lying little ass. My dd214 state Honorable. On base, in uniform when we stopped those Soviet ships off of Cuba. Presently working as a millwright in a steel mill at 73 years of age. And making one damned good income. Your scuzzy little ass would cave in following me around on a busy day. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah...you make such a "good living" that you demand that government illegally confiscate what others have and give it to you. Fuck'n little parasite. You're disgusting. And you clearly weren't raised properly. Good parents teach their children that *stealing* is *wrong*.
Click to expand...

Dumb fuck, taxes are the price of civilization, and if you don't pay your share, I'll laugh as I watch you marched off to the local lockup. LOL


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> Really? I have been a gun owner over 60 years now.


You've also been a full-fledged _asshole_ for over 60 years now. Here is proof...


See - here's the thing dill hole: I'm not allowed to purchase modern fully automatic weapons as the U.S. Constitution dictates I have the *right* to do. I'm not the least bit impressed that you've been "allowed" to hold onto your pitiful WWII wooden rifle.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb fuck, taxes are the price of civilization, and if you don't pay your share, I'll laugh as I watch you marched off to the local lockup. LOL


Greedy, lazy, parasite....taxes are *not* wealth redistribution as you've desperately attempted to turn them into. Taxes are to run the government (i.e. pay government salaries, fund government facilities, etc.). A person on welfare is not a government employee. They perform no service for me as a citizen.

Would you like to try again, you greedy, lazy, little parasite???


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb fuck, taxes are the price of civilization...


And dealing with ignorant, uninformed, uneducated, greedy little parasites like _you_ is the price of liberty. Well worth it. Small price to pay. But...still annoying having to listening to people like you whine that you deserve what belongs to other people. You're a genuine piece of shit. The worst that society has to offer. No different from Fidel Castro except you didn't have the personality, leadership, or work ethic to get people to follow your disgusting and pathetic communist desires.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

danielpalos said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> By golly, it is a known fact that the wind will stop blowing and the sun will go out someday, right? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> It's also a "known fact" that these technologies which you have been conditioned to worship, cost millions of dollars to implement and produce the energy equivalence of a fuck'n AAA battery.
> 
> In other words - it's idiotic and inefficient. Everything that progressives embrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have also been told that these windmills are a threat to fragile ecologies because they kill birds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smaller could be better.  Smaller fans could placed where birds are an actual nuisance.
Click to expand...

I think that mankind makes enough concessions for dumb animals. Maybe bigger birds are the answer. They need to evolve or die.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other half is upgrading our infrastructure in order to promote the general welfare whenever possible...
> 
> 
> 
> We've been over this snowflake. The "General Welfare" clause applies _only_ to their 18 enumerated powers. And "infrastructure" is *not* one of those powers.
> 
> If the U.S. actually followed your desperate and disgusting attempt to exploit the U.S. Constitution and its citizens - the federal government would have to provide firearms for _everyone_ (that definitely "promotes" the "general welfare"), providing housing for _everyone_, and would have to execute every anti-American progressive in America.
Click to expand...

That is only for republicans and their Republican Doctrine.  Thank you for your support of a welfare State over a warfare State.

Providing for the general welfare, is a general power.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop blaming the poor for getting poorer while the rich get richer.
> 
> 
> 
> Every person is responsible for their own destiny and their own results. For instance - it is the poor's fault for electing idiot Dumbocrats who implement failed left-wing policy which always results in the poor getting poorer. Just ask Venezuela.
Click to expand...

Lowering taxes and reducing social benefits does not, promote the general welfare.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb fuck, taxes are the price of civilization, and if you don't pay your share, I'll laugh as I watch you marched off to the local lockup. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Greedy, lazy, parasite....taxes are *not* wealth redistribution as you've desperately attempted to turn them into. Taxes are to run the government (i.e. pay government salaries, fund government facilities, etc.). A person on welfare is not a government employee. They perform no service for me as a citizen.
> 
> Would you like to try again, you greedy, lazy, little parasite???
Click to expand...

To provide for the general welfare and common defense, not the common offense or general warfare, at the expense of the poor.


----------



## danielpalos

Tommy Tainant said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> By golly, it is a known fact that the wind will stop blowing and the sun will go out someday, right? LOL
> 
> 
> 
> It's also a "known fact" that these technologies which you have been conditioned to worship, cost millions of dollars to implement and produce the energy equivalence of a fuck'n AAA battery.
> 
> In other words - it's idiotic and inefficient. Everything that progressives embrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have also been told that these windmills are a threat to fragile ecologies because they kill birds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smaller could be better.  Smaller fans could placed where birds are an actual nuisance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that mankind makes enough concessions for dumb animals. Maybe bigger birds are the answer. They need to evolve or die.
Click to expand...

Generating energy on grid for an "empire where the sun never sets", is more, "patriotic", in my opinion.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Providing for the general welfare, is a *general power*.


Except that there is *no* such thing as a "general power".


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind caring, even if I have to share, two girlfriends.
> 
> 
> 
> Every man should be allowed to have a stable of bitches.
> 
> And oral sex is not cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of misogynist progressive... women are nothing but sexual objects to be abused, mocked, and disrespected. You must be so proud to be on the left Seawytch, jillian, and bodecea
Click to expand...

I prefer the point of view on porn sites, "it is not cheating if there is no (vaginal) penetration.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Ford was a real capitalist.  Solid gold for the purposes of this capital discussion.  He did not whine about taxes or regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> How the _fuck_ do you know that?!? Did you used to sit in his living room with him and discuss that? Were you his assistant that went everywhere with him 24x7? How could you possibly know what he complained about and what he didn't?
> 
> How much shit are you going to keep making up on this board?
Click to expand...

pure electroplate and no substance?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Ford was a real capitalist.  Solid gold for the purposes of this capital discussion.  He did not whine about taxes or regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> How the _fuck_ do you know that?!? Did you used to sit in his living room with him and discuss that? Were you his assistant that went everywhere with him 24x7? How could you possibly know what he complained about and what he didn't?
> 
> How much shit are you going to keep making up on this board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pure electroplate and no substance?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question. You literally have no idea what he complained about and what he didn't. Nobody knows that. So....again....how much shit are you going to keep making up on this board?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for the general welfare, is a *general power*.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there is *no* such thing as a "general power".
Click to expand...

Yes, there is.  The power to Tax, is to pay the Debts, and provide for the general welfare and common defense.   Those are the powers for which our tax monies are for, in general.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Ford was a real capitalist.  Solid gold for the purposes of this capital discussion.  He did not whine about taxes or regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> How the _fuck_ do you know that?!? Did you used to sit in his living room with him and discuss that? Were you his assistant that went everywhere with him 24x7? How could you possibly know what he complained about and what he didn't?
> 
> How much shit are you going to keep making up on this board?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> pure electroplate and no substance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't answer the question. You literally have no idea what he complained about and what he didn't. Nobody knows that. So....again....how much shit are you going to keep making up on this board?
Click to expand...

dude, Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages of the day, not minimum wages.  Only lousy capitalists complain in modern capital times.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> dude, Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages of the day, not minimum wages.


Exactly! Of his *own* *free* *will*. Government didn't _force_ him to do it. Businesses today can't reward their employees because the government has obliterated them with taxes, regulations, requirements.

That's what left-wing policy does. It always ends in failure and hurts _everyone_.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for the general welfare, is a *general power*.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there is *no* such thing as a "general power".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there is.  *The power to Tax*, is to pay the Debts, and provide for the general welfare and common defense.   Those are the powers for which our tax monies are for, in general.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha! Think about what you just said. The power to tax is *not* a "general power". It is a specific power. The power to _tax_. There is nothing "general" about it.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude, Henry Ford doubled autoworker wages of the day, not minimum wages.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Of his *own* *free* *will*. Government didn't _force_ him to do it. Businesses today can't reward their employees because the government has obliterated them with taxes, regulations, requirements.
> 
> That's what left-wing policy does. It always ends in failure and hurts _everyone_.
Click to expand...

Hooverville pubic policies really are only worth, one term, dears.  Especially in modern corporate welfare times.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Providing for the general welfare, is a *general power*.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that there is *no* such thing as a "general power".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, there is.  *The power to Tax*, is to pay the Debts, and provide for the general welfare and common defense.   Those are the powers for which our tax monies are for, in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwahahahahaha! Think about what you just said. The power to tax is *not* a "general power". It is a specific power. The power to _tax_. There is nothing "general" about it.
Click to expand...

I prefer to quibble, due to having some clue and some Cause.

_The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, _

_to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; _​
_but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;_


----------



## P@triot

P@triot said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mind caring, even if I have to share, two girlfriends.
> 
> 
> 
> Every man should be allowed to have a stable of bitches.
> 
> And oral sex is not cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of misogynist progressive... women are nothing but sexual objects to be abused, mocked, and disrespected. You must be so proud to be on the left Seawytch, jillian, and bodecea
Click to expand...

Mmmm....one has to wonder why jillian marked my previous post here "funny"? She finds it "funny" when progressive men refer to women as "bitches", claim that "every man should be allowed to *HAVE* a STABLE" of them, and then states oral sex is "not" cheating?

No wonder progressive men treat them like that. They've made it clear that is behavior they will tolerate (if not approve).


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Especially in modern corporate welfare times.


Says the person who vehemently defends Barack Insane Obama for throwing over a trillion dollars at GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Solyndra, and more.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> This is why limp-wristed progressive cowards aren't tasked with defending this nation. You absolutely *can* defend against _any_ tactic, you dimwit.


Alright, pencils down and eyes to the front of the class.

You can't have a war against a tactic, because it is not a tangible enemy.  There is no way to tell when the war is over.  You cannot determine when you'll have your VE Day.  Or VJ Day.  

Que pasa, mutha?


----------



## Billo_Really

danielpalos said:


> I am working on the, "political angle".  With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.


Women don't want nice guys; they want danger boy.


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I have been a gun owner over 60 years now.
> 
> 
> 
> You've also been a full-fledged _asshole_ for over 60 years now. Here is proof...
> 
> 
> See - here's the thing dill hole: I'm not allowed to purchase modern fully automatic weapons as the U.S. Constitution dictates I have the *right* to do. I'm not the least bit impressed that you've been "allowed" to hold onto your pitiful WWII wooden rifle.
Click to expand...

That is a very good thing that you are not allowed to own a fully automatic rifle. I have friends who do legally own such. I would have to assume that you have a mental defect that precludes you from having a license to own such. The Supreme Court has stated that you do not have the right to own such a weapon without demonstrating that you are not a menace to society with such a weapon, and that is the way it will remain.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> That is a very good thing that you are not allowed to own a fully automatic rifle. I have friends who do legally own such. I would have to assume that you have a mental defect that precludes you from having a license to own such. The Supreme Court has stated that you do not have the right to own such a weapon without demonstrating that you are not a menace to society with such a weapon, and that is the way it will remain.


No...you do not have any friends that own a *modern* fully automatic weapon, you senile old asshole. They were banned by a federal government with no constitutional authority to do so. Existing full automatic weapons at the time (such as Uzi's, Thompson sub-machine guns, etc.) were rightfully grandfathered in. Your friends _might_ own one of those - but nothing from the 1990's or the 21st Century.

Your ignorance of firearm laws is exceeded only by your ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why limp-wristed progressive cowards aren't tasked with *defending* this nation. You absolutely *can* *defend* against _any_ tactic, you dimwit.
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, pencils down and eyes to the front of the class. You can't have a war against a tactic, because it is not a tangible enemy.  There is no way to tell when the war is over.  You cannot determine when you'll have your VE Day.  Or VJ Day. Que pasa, mutha?
Click to expand...

Please see the words bolded in blue above. Reading comprehension matters.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> You can't have a war against a tactic, because it is not a tangible enemy.  There is no way to tell when the war is *over*.


Again..._this_ is why the left is never tasked with defending this nation. Defense is _never_ "over". It is not a basketball game where everyone goes home when the clock hits 00:00. It is 24x7x365 for enternity.

There is a reason that even Barack Insane Obama didn't call the troops home. If you "end the war" as you idiotically keep calling for, we experience another 9/11.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially in modern corporate welfare times.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who vehemently defends Barack Insane Obama for throwing over a trillion dollars at GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Solyndra, and more.
Click to expand...

Mr. Obama had to bailout the rich, not blacks.  

The right wing complains more about welfare for the poor, than they do for the rich.


----------



## danielpalos

Billo_Really said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am working on the, "political angle".  With polygamy, every woman can marry a nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Women don't want nice guys; they want danger boy.
Click to expand...

That is not what they claim on their gender studies.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> Please see the words bolded in blue above. Reading comprehension matters.


It was wrong the first time you wrote it and its wrong now.

But just for the sake of argument, lets say you're right.  That would mean it is okay for Iraqis to shoot invading US troops for the terrorism we brought to their shores.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> Again..._this_ is why the left is never tasked with defending this nation. Defense is _never_ "over". It is not a basketball game where everyone goes home when the clock hits 00:00. It is 24x7x365 for enternity.
> 
> There is a reason that even Barack Insane Obama didn't call the troops home. If you "end the war" as you idiotically keep calling for, we experience another 9/11.


Using your logic, then we are still at war with Germany and Japan.


----------



## danielpalos

Technology is improving all the time:



> SolarWindow™ can be applied to all four sides of tall towers, generating electricity using natural, shaded, and even artificial light. Conventional solar simply does not work in shaded areas or perform under artificial light.
> 
> The result?  SolarWindow™ can outperform today’s solar by as much as 50-fold when installed on a 50 story building, according to independently validated power production calculations.
> 
> Source: Technology - SolarWindow


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially in modern corporate welfare times.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who vehemently defends Barack Insane Obama for throwing over a trillion dollars at GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Solyndra, and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mr. Obama had to bailout the rich*, not blacks.
Click to expand...

I rest my case. The person whining the loudest about "corporate welfare" is the person who supports and defends "corporate welfare" the most.

It's a good thing you already had zero credibility on this board Daniel because your idiotic comments contradicting themselves here would have completely destroyed your credibility if you had had some.


----------



## mamooth

Reality just keeps smacking the snowflakes around. That's why they're here rage-weeping. You'd think they'd be used to the pain and humiliation by now.

U.S. Solar Market Insight | SEIA
---
The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes. This represents an 8% increase over the same quarter last year, and the industry is poised to install more than 12 GW of solar capacity before the end of 2017.
---

Solar installations always peak in the fourth quarter of each year. Probably has to do with taxes.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially in modern corporate welfare times.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who vehemently defends Barack Insane Obama for throwing over a trillion dollars at GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Solyndra, and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mr. Obama had to bailout the rich*, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case. The person whining the loudest about "corporate welfare" is the person who supports and defends "corporate welfare" the most.
> 
> It's a good thing you already had zero credibility on this board Daniel because your idiotic comments contradicting themselves here would have completely destroyed your credibility if you had had some.
Click to expand...

I am not the one whining about welfare for Individuals.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

mamooth said:


> Reality just keeps smacking the snowflakes around. That's why they're here rage-weeping. You'd think they'd be used to the pain and humiliation by now.
> 
> U.S. Solar Market Insight | SEIA
> ---
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes. This represents an 8% increase over the same quarter last year, and the industry is poised to install more than 12 GW of solar capacity before the end of 2017.
> ---
> 
> Solar installations always peak in the fourth quarter of each year. Probably has to do with taxes.



*What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?*
_In 2016, about 4.08 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale facilities in the United States.  About 65% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 15% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that an additional* 19 billion kWh (or about 0.02 trillion kWh) of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2016*._

_Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016_


_Natural gas = 33.8%_
_Coal = 30.4%_
_Nuclear = 19.7%_
_Renewables (total) = 14.9%_
_Hydropower = 6.5%_
_Wind = 5.6%_
_Biomass = 1.5%_

_*Solar  = 0.9%*_
_Geothermal = 0.4%_

_Petroleum = 0.6%_
_Other gases = 0.3%_
_Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%_
_Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4_
What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)_3
_
Solar, 0.9% of 4.08 trillion kWh, about 36.72 billion kWh of utility scale production plus 19 billion kWh from small scale solar adds up to almost 56 billion kWh in 2016.
*
The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity,
*
47.1 GW, or 47,100 MW, or 47,100,000 KW of installed capacity times 8760 hours would produce 412,596,000,000 kWh/year. 412.596 billion kWh versus 56 billion kWh of actual output.
Wow! Even if we assume average installed capacity last year was only 37 GW, that still gives about 17% output versus "installed capacity".

*47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes.
*
Or about 17% of 9.1 million.
*
*


----------



## Old Rocks

P@triot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very good thing that you are not allowed to own a fully automatic rifle. I have friends who do legally own such. I would have to assume that you have a mental defect that precludes you from having a license to own such. The Supreme Court has stated that you do not have the right to own such a weapon without demonstrating that you are not a menace to society with such a weapon, and that is the way it will remain.
> 
> 
> 
> No...you do not have any friends that own a *modern* fully automatic weapon, you senile old asshole. They were banned by a federal government with no constitutional authority to do so. Existing full automatic weapons at the time (such as Uzi's, Thompson sub-machine guns, etc.) were rightfully grandfathered in. Your friends _might_ own one of those - but nothing from the 1990's or the 21st Century.
> 
> Your ignorance of firearm laws is exceeded only by your ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

*And you are a fucking idiot.*

Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto - The Firearm Blog

I love machine guns. They don’t call the selectors on automatic firearms “fun switches” for nothing, and I have yet to hand off a machine gun to someone and have it not bring a smile to their face (it brings me joy exposing people to full auto for the first time). For the sake of this article, the word “machine gun” will meet the ATF’s definition: _Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger._

The machine gun was invented by American Hiram Maxim, and interestingly enough, the USA is one of the few countries on the planet where regular folks can in fact own a fully automatic firearm. In fact,*machine guns have never been illegal in the USA* on a federal level. They are heavily regulated, but not illegal at all.


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality just keeps smacking the snowflakes around. That's why they're here rage-weeping. You'd think they'd be used to the pain and humiliation by now.
> 
> U.S. Solar Market Insight | SEIA
> ---
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes. This represents an 8% increase over the same quarter last year, and the industry is poised to install more than 12 GW of solar capacity before the end of 2017.
> ---
> 
> Solar installations always peak in the fourth quarter of each year. Probably has to do with taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?*
> _In 2016, about 4.08 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale facilities in the United States.  About 65% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 15% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that an additional* 19 billion kWh (or about 0.02 trillion kWh) of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2016*._
> 
> _Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016_
> 
> 
> _Natural gas = 33.8%_
> _Coal = 30.4%_
> _Nuclear = 19.7%_
> _Renewables (total) = 14.9%_
> _Hydropower = 6.5%_
> _Wind = 5.6%_
> _Biomass = 1.5%_
> 
> _*Solar  = 0.9%*_
> _Geothermal = 0.4%_
> 
> _Petroleum = 0.6%_
> _Other gases = 0.3%_
> _Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%_
> _Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4_
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)_3
> _
> Solar, 0.9% of 4.08 trillion kWh, about 36.72 billion kWh of utility scale production plus 19 billion kWh from small scale solar adds up to almost 56 billion kWh in 2016.
> *
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity,
> *
> 47.1 GW, or 47,100 MW, or 47,100,000 KW of installed capacity times 8760 hours would produce 412,596,000,000 kWh/year. 412.596 billion kWh versus 56 billion kWh of actual output.
> Wow! Even if we assume average installed capacity last year was only 37 GW, that still gives about 17% output versus "installed capacity".
> 
> *47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes.
> *
> Or about 17% of 9.1 million.
Click to expand...

Well yes, that is the present situation. But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy. Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Stopped by an old customer last week, a green energy recyling set up, turning plastic back into oil. Got there the building was mty.....they are on their 2rd retooling. First gig failed dont know what the middle one was, now they are setting up to process used oil. Wonder who is paying for all this. Gotta be talkimg millions of dollars each time in just new equip much less the high end technicians needed to set it up all up. Dont know of any companies that get to fail that spectacularly and keep on going.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality just keeps smacking the snowflakes around. That's why they're here rage-weeping. You'd think they'd be used to the pain and humiliation by now.
> 
> U.S. Solar Market Insight | SEIA
> ---
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes. This represents an 8% increase over the same quarter last year, and the industry is poised to install more than 12 GW of solar capacity before the end of 2017.
> ---
> 
> Solar installations always peak in the fourth quarter of each year. Probably has to do with taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?*
> _In 2016, about 4.08 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale facilities in the United States.  About 65% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 15% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that an additional* 19 billion kWh (or about 0.02 trillion kWh) of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2016*._
> 
> _Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016_
> 
> 
> _Natural gas = 33.8%_
> _Coal = 30.4%_
> _Nuclear = 19.7%_
> _Renewables (total) = 14.9%_
> _Hydropower = 6.5%_
> _Wind = 5.6%_
> _Biomass = 1.5%_
> 
> _*Solar  = 0.9%*_
> _Geothermal = 0.4%_
> 
> _Petroleum = 0.6%_
> _Other gases = 0.3%_
> _Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%_
> _Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4_
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)_3
> _
> Solar, 0.9% of 4.08 trillion kWh, about 36.72 billion kWh of utility scale production plus 19 billion kWh from small scale solar adds up to almost 56 billion kWh in 2016.
> *
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity,
> *
> 47.1 GW, or 47,100 MW, or 47,100,000 KW of installed capacity times 8760 hours would produce 412,596,000,000 kWh/year. 412.596 billion kWh versus 56 billion kWh of actual output.
> Wow! Even if we assume average installed capacity last year was only 37 GW, that still gives about 17% output versus "installed capacity".
> 
> *47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes.
> *
> Or about 17% of 9.1 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well yes, that is the present situation. But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy. Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
Click to expand...

*
Well yes, that is the present situation.
*
Yes, one-sixth (or less) of installed capacity is actual output.
*
But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy.
*
Soon? When?

*Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
*
Only when you're handing out taxpayer checks.


----------



## Old Rocks

And if the coal companies cease to receive those checks, they will be out of business even more quickly. And the oil companies might make a few less billions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> And if the coal companies cease to receive those checks, they will be out of business even more quickly. And the oil companies might make a few less billions.



Coal companies are receiving government checks?
Tell me more!


----------



## Old Rocks

How much subsidy does coal get?
The federal government provided substantially larger *subsidies* to fossil fuels than to renewables. *Subsidies* to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for *many* years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.
*Federal coal subsidies - SourceWatch*
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies

There


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

*Coal*
The study singled out the following major subsidies benefiting the coal industry:


Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (annual subsidy: $14 billion)- IRC Section 45K. This provision provides a tax credit for the production of certain fuels. Qualifying fuels include: oil from shale, tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations, biomass, and coal-based synthetic fuels. This credit has historically primarily benefited coal producers.
Characterizing Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains (annual subsidy: $986 million) - IRC Section 631(c). Income from the sale of coal under royalty contract may be treated as a capital gain rather than ordinary income for qualifying individuals. (The 2011 report, "What Would Jefferson Do?: The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future" calculated this subsidy totaled over $1.3 billion in government tax expenditures from 2000 – 2009.)
Exclusion of Benefit Payments to Disabled Miners (annual subsidy: $438 million) - 30 U.S.C. 922(c). Disability payments out of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund are not treated as income to the recipients.
Exclusion of Alternative Fuels from Fuel Excise Tax (annual subsiy: $343 million) - IRC Section 6426(d). This section applies to liquified petroleum gas (LPG), P-series fuels (defined at 42 U.S.C. 13211(2)), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied hydrogen,3 liquid coal, and liquid hydrocarbon from biomass.
Other-Fuel Exploration & Development Expensing (annual subsidy: $342 million) - IRC Section 617. Identical provisions as applied to oil and gas (above). Including, for example, the costs of surface stripping, and construction of shafts and tunnels.
Other-Fuel Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion (annual subsidy: $323 million)- IRC Section 613. Taxpayers may deduct 10 percent of gross income from coal production.
Credit for Clean Coal Investment ($186 million)- IRC Sections 48A and 48B. Available for 20 percent of the basis of integrated gasification combined cycle property and 15 percent of the basis for other advanced coal-based generation technologies.
Special Rules for Mining Reclamation Reserves ($159) - IRC Section 468. This deduction is available for early payments into reserve trusts, with eligibility determined by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the Solid Waste Management Act. The amounts attributable to mines rather than solid-waste facilities are conservatively assumed to be one-half of the total.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($6.3 billion) - The main structure of the program is to provide low-income households with the means to make their utility payments, the vast majority of which is energy generated by fossil fuels. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has tabulated the percentage of households using fossil versus non-fossil heating fuels in 2001, and ELI used the percentage as a proxy for fossil versus non-fossil expenditures for 2002-2008.
Black Lung Disability Trust Fund ($1 billion) - pays health benefits to coal miners afflicted with pneumoconiosis, a long-term degenerative disease from constant inhalation of coal dust, also known as “black lung.” Created in 1978, it is funded through an excise tax on coal to support a trust fund covering health costs of affected workers, however the tax is not sufficient to cover all costs, and the BLDTF was given “indefinite authority to borrow” from the U.S. General Fund. By the end of FY 2008, the BLDTF had accrued nearly $13 billion in debt. In 2008, Congress partially “bailed out” the BLDTF, which ELI tabulated as a subsidy to coal.
These are subsidies for coal?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially in modern corporate welfare times.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who vehemently defends Barack Insane Obama for throwing over a trillion dollars at GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Solyndra, and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mr. Obama had to bailout the rich*, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case. The person whining the loudest about "corporate welfare" is the person who supports and defends "corporate welfare" the most.
> 
> It's a good thing you already had zero credibility on this board Daniel because your idiotic comments contradicting themselves here would have completely destroyed your credibility if you had had some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one whining about welfare for Individuals.
Click to expand...

No...you're whining about "corporate welfare" while vehemently defending the most extreme "corporate welfare" ever just because it was done by Barack Insane Obama. This is a prime example of why nobody on this board takes you seriously.


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very good thing that you are not allowed to own a fully automatic rifle. I have friends who do legally own such. I would have to assume that you have a mental defect that precludes you from having a license to own such. The Supreme Court has stated that you do not have the right to own such a weapon without demonstrating that you are not a menace to society with such a weapon, and that is the way it will remain.
> 
> 
> 
> No...you do not have any friends that own a *modern* fully automatic weapon, you senile old asshole. They were banned by a federal government with no constitutional authority to do so. Existing full automatic weapons at the time (such as Uzi's, Thompson sub-machine guns, etc.) were rightfully grandfathered in. Your friends _might_ own one of those - but nothing from the 1990's or the 21st Century.
> 
> Your ignorance of firearm laws is exceeded only by your ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And you are a fucking idiot.*
> 
> Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto - The Firearm Blog
> 
> I love machine guns. They don’t call the selectors on automatic firearms “fun switches” for nothing, and I have yet to hand off a machine gun to someone and have it not bring a smile to their face (it brings me joy exposing people to full auto for the first time). For the sake of this article, the word “machine gun” will meet the ATF’s definition: _Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger._
> 
> The machine gun was invented by American Hiram Maxim, and interestingly enough, the USA is one of the few countries on the planet where regular folks can in fact own a fully automatic firearm. In fact,*machine guns have never been illegal in the USA* on a federal level. They are heavily regulated, but not illegal at all.
Click to expand...

Again dumb ass.....machine guns like Uzi's and Thompson Sub-machine guns are legal. Nobody is arguing that. I said modern from the get-go. The problem is your reading comprehension (which explains why you are an ignorant progressive).


----------



## P@triot

Old Rocks said:


> And if the coal companies cease to receive those checks, they will be out of business even more quickly. And the oil companies might make a few less billions.


Really? Show me any coal company that would have gone out of business with a half a BILLION dollar check from Uncle Sam like fucking Solyndra did. Moron.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially in modern corporate welfare times.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person who vehemently defends Barack Insane Obama for throwing over a trillion dollars at GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, Solyndra, and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Mr. Obama had to bailout the rich*, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case. The person whining the loudest about "corporate welfare" is the person who supports and defends "corporate welfare" the most.
> 
> It's a good thing you already had zero credibility on this board Daniel because your idiotic comments contradicting themselves here would have completely destroyed your credibility if you had had some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one whining about welfare for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No...you're whining about "corporate welfare" while vehemently defending the most extreme "corporate welfare" ever just because it was done by Barack Insane Obama. This is a prime example of why nobody on this board takes you seriously.
Click to expand...

I don't whine about welfare for real persons only artificial persons.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> They're on the verge of bankruptcy because they tried to monopolize the industry and bit off more than they could chew, not because of the technology.  As usual, you are full of shit.
> 
> We are $19 trillion in debt because of these bullshit wars we've been fighting for the last 10 years; our obscene defense budget; corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks; and pieces of shit like Tom Price and Steven Mnuchin wanting to have tax payers pay for their travel expenses.
Click to expand...

WE are $19 trillion in debt because of social spending, not because of wars. Military spending is less than 20% of the budget.

All you leftwing cockroaches try to blame our fiscal problems on the military when the real cause is you.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> And if the coal companies cease to receive those checks, they will be out of business even more quickly. And the oil companies might make a few less billions.



ROFL!  Utter horseshit.  Men have been mining coal for at least 400 years.  Do you imagine the government subsidized it 400 years ago?


----------



## danielpalos

Old Rocks said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a very good thing that you are not allowed to own a fully automatic rifle. I have friends who do legally own such. I would have to assume that you have a mental defect that precludes you from having a license to own such. The Supreme Court has stated that you do not have the right to own such a weapon without demonstrating that you are not a menace to society with such a weapon, and that is the way it will remain.
> 
> 
> 
> No...you do not have any friends that own a *modern* fully automatic weapon, you senile old asshole. They were banned by a federal government with no constitutional authority to do so. Existing full automatic weapons at the time (such as Uzi's, Thompson sub-machine guns, etc.) were rightfully grandfathered in. Your friends _might_ own one of those - but nothing from the 1990's or the 21st Century.
> 
> Your ignorance of firearm laws is exceeded only by your ignorance of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And you are a fucking idiot.*
> 
> Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto - The Firearm Blog
> 
> I love machine guns. They don’t call the selectors on automatic firearms “fun switches” for nothing, and I have yet to hand off a machine gun to someone and have it not bring a smile to their face (it brings me joy exposing people to full auto for the first time). For the sake of this article, the word “machine gun” will meet the ATF’s definition: _Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger._
> 
> The machine gun was invented by American Hiram Maxim, and interestingly enough, the USA is one of the few countries on the planet where regular folks can in fact own a fully automatic firearm. In fact,*machine guns have never been illegal in the USA* on a federal level. They are heavily regulated, but not illegal at all.
Click to expand...

Just the right wing being drama queens about gun grabbing?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality just keeps smacking the snowflakes around. That's why they're here rage-weeping. You'd think they'd be used to the pain and humiliation by now.
> 
> U.S. Solar Market Insight | SEIA
> ---
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes. This represents an 8% increase over the same quarter last year, and the industry is poised to install more than 12 GW of solar capacity before the end of 2017.
> ---
> 
> Solar installations always peak in the fourth quarter of each year. Probably has to do with taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?*
> _In 2016, about 4.08 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale facilities in the United States.  About 65% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 15% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that an additional* 19 billion kWh (or about 0.02 trillion kWh) of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2016*._
> 
> _Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016_
> 
> 
> _Natural gas = 33.8%_
> _Coal = 30.4%_
> _Nuclear = 19.7%_
> _Renewables (total) = 14.9%_
> _Hydropower = 6.5%_
> _Wind = 5.6%_
> _Biomass = 1.5%_
> 
> _*Solar  = 0.9%*_
> _Geothermal = 0.4%_
> 
> _Petroleum = 0.6%_
> _Other gases = 0.3%_
> _Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%_
> _Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4_
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)_3
> _
> Solar, 0.9% of 4.08 trillion kWh, about 36.72 billion kWh of utility scale production plus 19 billion kWh from small scale solar adds up to almost 56 billion kWh in 2016.
> *
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity,
> *
> 47.1 GW, or 47,100 MW, or 47,100,000 KW of installed capacity times 8760 hours would produce 412,596,000,000 kWh/year. 412.596 billion kWh versus 56 billion kWh of actual output.
> Wow! Even if we assume average installed capacity last year was only 37 GW, that still gives about 17% output versus "installed capacity".
> 
> *47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes.
> *
> Or about 17% of 9.1 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well yes, that is the present situation. But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy. Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Well yes, that is the present situation.
> *
> Yes, one-sixth (or less) of installed capacity is actual output.
> *
> But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy.
> *
> Soon? When?
> 
> *Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> *
> Only when you're handing out taxpayer checks.
Click to expand...

Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Coal*
> The study singled out the following major subsidies benefiting the coal industry:
> 
> 
> Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (annual subsidy: $14 billion)- IRC Section 45K. This provision provides a tax credit for the production of certain fuels. Qualifying fuels include: oil from shale, tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations, biomass, and coal-based synthetic fuels. This credit has historically primarily benefited coal producers.
> Characterizing Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains (annual subsidy: $986 million) - IRC Section 631(c). Income from the sale of coal under royalty contract may be treated as a capital gain rather than ordinary income for qualifying individuals. (The 2011 report, "What Would Jefferson Do?: The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future" calculated this subsidy totaled over $1.3 billion in government tax expenditures from 2000 – 2009.)
> Exclusion of Benefit Payments to Disabled Miners (annual subsidy: $438 million) - 30 U.S.C. 922(c). Disability payments out of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund are not treated as income to the recipients.
> Exclusion of Alternative Fuels from Fuel Excise Tax (annual subsiy: $343 million) - IRC Section 6426(d). This section applies to liquified petroleum gas (LPG), P-series fuels (defined at 42 U.S.C. 13211(2)), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied hydrogen,3 liquid coal, and liquid hydrocarbon from biomass.
> Other-Fuel Exploration & Development Expensing (annual subsidy: $342 million) - IRC Section 617. Identical provisions as applied to oil and gas (above). Including, for example, the costs of surface stripping, and construction of shafts and tunnels.
> Other-Fuel Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion (annual subsidy: $323 million)- IRC Section 613. Taxpayers may deduct 10 percent of gross income from coal production.
> Credit for Clean Coal Investment ($186 million)- IRC Sections 48A and 48B. Available for 20 percent of the basis of integrated gasification combined cycle property and 15 percent of the basis for other advanced coal-based generation technologies.
> Special Rules for Mining Reclamation Reserves ($159) - IRC Section 468. This deduction is available for early payments into reserve trusts, with eligibility determined by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the Solid Waste Management Act. The amounts attributable to mines rather than solid-waste facilities are conservatively assumed to be one-half of the total.
> The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($6.3 billion) - The main structure of the program is to provide low-income households with the means to make their utility payments, the vast majority of which is energy generated by fossil fuels. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has tabulated the percentage of households using fossil versus non-fossil heating fuels in 2001, and ELI used the percentage as a proxy for fossil versus non-fossil expenditures for 2002-2008.
> Black Lung Disability Trust Fund ($1 billion) - pays health benefits to coal miners afflicted with pneumoconiosis, a long-term degenerative disease from constant inhalation of coal dust, also known as “black lung.” Created in 1978, it is funded through an excise tax on coal to support a trust fund covering health costs of affected workers, however the tax is not sufficient to cover all costs, and the BLDTF was given “indefinite authority to borrow” from the U.S. General Fund. By the end of FY 2008, the BLDTF had accrued nearly $13 billion in debt. In 2008, Congress partially “bailed out” the BLDTF, which ELI tabulated as a subsidy to coal.
> These are subsidies for coal?


Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (annual subsidy: $14 billion)- IRC Section 45K. This provision provides a tax credit for the production of certain fuels. Qualifying fuels include: oil from shale, tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations, biomass, and coal-based synthetic fuels....


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - "green" energy is a _great_ concept. But so is cold fusion, automobiles that run on water, and a world without wars. Unfortunately, all of them are absurd pipe-dreams at this time.
> 
> The problem with "green" energy is the cost/benefit ratio. You have to spend millions of dollars to get the energy equivalent of a AAA battery (I'm exaggerating obviously but sadly not by a whole lot). Which makes it an unsustainable business venture. The federal government illegally invested half a billion dollars into Solyndra and they _still_ went bankrupt.
> 
> Now, the world's largest renewable energy developer is also on the verge of bankruptcy as well. The government needs to get out of the green energy business and allow the private sector to fund all research and development. We're $19 trillion in debt because of illegal nonsense like that, and we can't afford to keep betting on a loser. Some day, technology will advance to the point where green energy will be a viable and brilliant solution. But that time is not now and pumping billions of dollars a year for over 4 decades now has yielded no ROI (and even if it had, it is still unconstitutional and that is all that matters).
> 
> World's largest renewable energy developer on verge of bankruptcy
> 
> 
> 
> They're on the verge of bankruptcy because they tried to monopolize the industry and bit off more than they could chew, not because of the technology.  As usual, you are full of shit.
> 
> We are $19 trillion in debt because of these bullshit wars we've been fighting for the last 10 years; our obscene defense budget; corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks; and pieces of shit like Tom Price and Steven Mnuchin wanting to have tax payers pay for their travel expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WE are $19 trillion in debt because of social spending, not because of wars. Military spending is less than 20% of the budget.
> 
> All you leftwing cockroaches try to blame our fiscal problems on the military when the real cause is you.
Click to expand...

We need to audit our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror instead of the Fed.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if the coal companies cease to receive those checks, they will be out of business even more quickly. And the oil companies might make a few less billions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL!  Utter horseshit.  Men have been mining coal for at least 400 years.  Do you imagine the government subsidized it 400 years ago?
Click to expand...

Government mines, usually; with slave labor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality just keeps smacking the snowflakes around. That's why they're here rage-weeping. You'd think they'd be used to the pain and humiliation by now.
> 
> U.S. Solar Market Insight | SEIA
> ---
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes. This represents an 8% increase over the same quarter last year, and the industry is poised to install more than 12 GW of solar capacity before the end of 2017.
> ---
> 
> Solar installations always peak in the fourth quarter of each year. Probably has to do with taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?*
> _In 2016, about 4.08 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale facilities in the United States.  About 65% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 15% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that an additional* 19 billion kWh (or about 0.02 trillion kWh) of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2016*._
> 
> _Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016_
> 
> 
> _Natural gas = 33.8%_
> _Coal = 30.4%_
> _Nuclear = 19.7%_
> _Renewables (total) = 14.9%_
> _Hydropower = 6.5%_
> _Wind = 5.6%_
> _Biomass = 1.5%_
> 
> _*Solar  = 0.9%*_
> _Geothermal = 0.4%_
> 
> _Petroleum = 0.6%_
> _Other gases = 0.3%_
> _Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%_
> _Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4_
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)_3
> _
> Solar, 0.9% of 4.08 trillion kWh, about 36.72 billion kWh of utility scale production plus 19 billion kWh from small scale solar adds up to almost 56 billion kWh in 2016.
> *
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity,
> *
> 47.1 GW, or 47,100 MW, or 47,100,000 KW of installed capacity times 8760 hours would produce 412,596,000,000 kWh/year. 412.596 billion kWh versus 56 billion kWh of actual output.
> Wow! Even if we assume average installed capacity last year was only 37 GW, that still gives about 17% output versus "installed capacity".
> 
> *47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes.
> *
> Or about 17% of 9.1 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well yes, that is the present situation. But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy. Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Well yes, that is the present situation.
> *
> Yes, one-sixth (or less) of installed capacity is actual output.
> *
> But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy.
> *
> Soon? When?
> 
> *Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> *
> Only when you're handing out taxpayer checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?
Click to expand...


*Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?
*
Deducting business expenses?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Coal*
> The study singled out the following major subsidies benefiting the coal industry:
> 
> 
> Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (annual subsidy: $14 billion)- IRC Section 45K. This provision provides a tax credit for the production of certain fuels. Qualifying fuels include: oil from shale, tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations, biomass, and coal-based synthetic fuels. This credit has historically primarily benefited coal producers.
> Characterizing Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains (annual subsidy: $986 million) - IRC Section 631(c). Income from the sale of coal under royalty contract may be treated as a capital gain rather than ordinary income for qualifying individuals. (The 2011 report, "What Would Jefferson Do?: The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future" calculated this subsidy totaled over $1.3 billion in government tax expenditures from 2000 – 2009.)
> Exclusion of Benefit Payments to Disabled Miners (annual subsidy: $438 million) - 30 U.S.C. 922(c). Disability payments out of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund are not treated as income to the recipients.
> Exclusion of Alternative Fuels from Fuel Excise Tax (annual subsiy: $343 million) - IRC Section 6426(d). This section applies to liquified petroleum gas (LPG), P-series fuels (defined at 42 U.S.C. 13211(2)), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied hydrogen,3 liquid coal, and liquid hydrocarbon from biomass.
> Other-Fuel Exploration & Development Expensing (annual subsidy: $342 million) - IRC Section 617. Identical provisions as applied to oil and gas (above). Including, for example, the costs of surface stripping, and construction of shafts and tunnels.
> Other-Fuel Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion (annual subsidy: $323 million)- IRC Section 613. Taxpayers may deduct 10 percent of gross income from coal production.
> Credit for Clean Coal Investment ($186 million)- IRC Sections 48A and 48B. Available for 20 percent of the basis of integrated gasification combined cycle property and 15 percent of the basis for other advanced coal-based generation technologies.
> Special Rules for Mining Reclamation Reserves ($159) - IRC Section 468. This deduction is available for early payments into reserve trusts, with eligibility determined by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the Solid Waste Management Act. The amounts attributable to mines rather than solid-waste facilities are conservatively assumed to be one-half of the total.
> The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($6.3 billion) - The main structure of the program is to provide low-income households with the means to make their utility payments, the vast majority of which is energy generated by fossil fuels. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has tabulated the percentage of households using fossil versus non-fossil heating fuels in 2001, and ELI used the percentage as a proxy for fossil versus non-fossil expenditures for 2002-2008.
> Black Lung Disability Trust Fund ($1 billion) - pays health benefits to coal miners afflicted with pneumoconiosis, a long-term degenerative disease from constant inhalation of coal dust, also known as “black lung.” Created in 1978, it is funded through an excise tax on coal to support a trust fund covering health costs of affected workers, however the tax is not sufficient to cover all costs, and the BLDTF was given “indefinite authority to borrow” from the U.S. General Fund. By the end of FY 2008, the BLDTF had accrued nearly $13 billion in debt. In 2008, Congress partially “bailed out” the BLDTF, which ELI tabulated as a subsidy to coal.
> These are subsidies for coal?
> 
> 
> 
> Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (annual subsidy: $14 billion)- IRC Section 45K. This provision provides a tax credit for the production of certain fuels. Qualifying fuels include: oil from shale, tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations, biomass, and coal-based synthetic fuels....
Click to expand...


*coal-based synthetic fuels....
*
Sounds like something Jimmy Carter did.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reality just keeps smacking the snowflakes around. That's why they're here rage-weeping. You'd think they'd be used to the pain and humiliation by now.
> 
> U.S. Solar Market Insight | SEIA
> ---
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes. This represents an 8% increase over the same quarter last year, and the industry is poised to install more than 12 GW of solar capacity before the end of 2017.
> ---
> 
> Solar installations always peak in the fourth quarter of each year. Probably has to do with taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?*
> _In 2016, about 4.08 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale facilities in the United States.  About 65% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 15% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that an additional* 19 billion kWh (or about 0.02 trillion kWh) of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2016*._
> 
> _Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016_
> 
> 
> _Natural gas = 33.8%_
> _Coal = 30.4%_
> _Nuclear = 19.7%_
> _Renewables (total) = 14.9%_
> _Hydropower = 6.5%_
> _Wind = 5.6%_
> _Biomass = 1.5%_
> 
> _*Solar  = 0.9%*_
> _Geothermal = 0.4%_
> 
> _Petroleum = 0.6%_
> _Other gases = 0.3%_
> _Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%_
> _Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4_
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)_3
> _
> Solar, 0.9% of 4.08 trillion kWh, about 36.72 billion kWh of utility scale production plus 19 billion kWh from small scale solar adds up to almost 56 billion kWh in 2016.
> *
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity,
> *
> 47.1 GW, or 47,100 MW, or 47,100,000 KW of installed capacity times 8760 hours would produce 412,596,000,000 kWh/year. 412.596 billion kWh versus 56 billion kWh of actual output.
> Wow! Even if we assume average installed capacity last year was only 37 GW, that still gives about 17% output versus "installed capacity".
> 
> *47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes.
> *
> Or about 17% of 9.1 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well yes, that is the present situation. But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy. Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Well yes, that is the present situation.
> *
> Yes, one-sixth (or less) of installed capacity is actual output.
> *
> But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy.
> *
> Soon? When?
> 
> *Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> *
> Only when you're handing out taxpayer checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?
> *
> Deducting business expenses?
Click to expand...

Nope; the non-fossil fuel sector can do the same.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Coal*
> The study singled out the following major subsidies benefiting the coal industry:
> 
> 
> Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (annual subsidy: $14 billion)- IRC Section 45K. This provision provides a tax credit for the production of certain fuels. Qualifying fuels include: oil from shale, tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations, biomass, and coal-based synthetic fuels. This credit has historically primarily benefited coal producers.
> Characterizing Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains (annual subsidy: $986 million) - IRC Section 631(c). Income from the sale of coal under royalty contract may be treated as a capital gain rather than ordinary income for qualifying individuals. (The 2011 report, "What Would Jefferson Do?: The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future" calculated this subsidy totaled over $1.3 billion in government tax expenditures from 2000 – 2009.)
> Exclusion of Benefit Payments to Disabled Miners (annual subsidy: $438 million) - 30 U.S.C. 922(c). Disability payments out of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund are not treated as income to the recipients.
> Exclusion of Alternative Fuels from Fuel Excise Tax (annual subsiy: $343 million) - IRC Section 6426(d). This section applies to liquified petroleum gas (LPG), P-series fuels (defined at 42 U.S.C. 13211(2)), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied hydrogen,3 liquid coal, and liquid hydrocarbon from biomass.
> Other-Fuel Exploration & Development Expensing (annual subsidy: $342 million) - IRC Section 617. Identical provisions as applied to oil and gas (above). Including, for example, the costs of surface stripping, and construction of shafts and tunnels.
> Other-Fuel Excess of Percentage over Cost Depletion (annual subsidy: $323 million)- IRC Section 613. Taxpayers may deduct 10 percent of gross income from coal production.
> Credit for Clean Coal Investment ($186 million)- IRC Sections 48A and 48B. Available for 20 percent of the basis of integrated gasification combined cycle property and 15 percent of the basis for other advanced coal-based generation technologies.
> Special Rules for Mining Reclamation Reserves ($159) - IRC Section 468. This deduction is available for early payments into reserve trusts, with eligibility determined by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the Solid Waste Management Act. The amounts attributable to mines rather than solid-waste facilities are conservatively assumed to be one-half of the total.
> The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ($6.3 billion) - The main structure of the program is to provide low-income households with the means to make their utility payments, the vast majority of which is energy generated by fossil fuels. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has tabulated the percentage of households using fossil versus non-fossil heating fuels in 2001, and ELI used the percentage as a proxy for fossil versus non-fossil expenditures for 2002-2008.
> Black Lung Disability Trust Fund ($1 billion) - pays health benefits to coal miners afflicted with pneumoconiosis, a long-term degenerative disease from constant inhalation of coal dust, also known as “black lung.” Created in 1978, it is funded through an excise tax on coal to support a trust fund covering health costs of affected workers, however the tax is not sufficient to cover all costs, and the BLDTF was given “indefinite authority to borrow” from the U.S. General Fund. By the end of FY 2008, the BLDTF had accrued nearly $13 billion in debt. In 2008, Congress partially “bailed out” the BLDTF, which ELI tabulated as a subsidy to coal.
> These are subsidies for coal?
> 
> 
> 
> Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (annual subsidy: $14 billion)- IRC Section 45K. This provision provides a tax credit for the production of certain fuels. Qualifying fuels include: oil from shale, tar sands; gas from geopressurized brine, Devonian shale, coal seams, tight formations, biomass, and coal-based synthetic fuels....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *coal-based synthetic fuels....
> *
> Sounds like something Jimmy Carter did.
Click to expand...

Mr. Carter dealt with nuclear energy as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?*
> _In 2016, about 4.08 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale facilities in the United States.  About 65% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 15% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that an additional* 19 billion kWh (or about 0.02 trillion kWh) of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2016*._
> 
> _Major energy sources and percent shares of U.S. electricity generation at utility-scale facilities in 2016_
> 
> 
> _Natural gas = 33.8%_
> _Coal = 30.4%_
> _Nuclear = 19.7%_
> _Renewables (total) = 14.9%_
> _Hydropower = 6.5%_
> _Wind = 5.6%_
> _Biomass = 1.5%_
> 
> _*Solar  = 0.9%*_
> _Geothermal = 0.4%_
> 
> _Petroleum = 0.6%_
> _Other gases = 0.3%_
> _Other nonrenewable sources = 0.3%_
> _Pumped storage hydroelectricity = -0.2%4_
> What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)_3
> _
> Solar, 0.9% of 4.08 trillion kWh, about 36.72 billion kWh of utility scale production plus 19 billion kWh from small scale solar adds up to almost 56 billion kWh in 2016.
> *
> The U.S. installed 2,387 megawatts (MW) of solar PV in Q2 2017 to reach 47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity,
> *
> 47.1 GW, or 47,100 MW, or 47,100,000 KW of installed capacity times 8760 hours would produce 412,596,000,000 kWh/year. 412.596 billion kWh versus 56 billion kWh of actual output.
> Wow! Even if we assume average installed capacity last year was only 37 GW, that still gives about 17% output versus "installed capacity".
> 
> *47.1 gigawatts (GW) of total installed capacity, enough to power 9.1 million American homes.
> *
> Or about 17% of 9.1 million.
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, that is the present situation. But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy. Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Well yes, that is the present situation.
> *
> Yes, one-sixth (or less) of installed capacity is actual output.
> *
> But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy.
> *
> Soon? When?
> 
> *Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> *
> Only when you're handing out taxpayer checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?
> *
> Deducting business expenses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; the non-fossil fuel sector can do the same.
Click to expand...


I agree, deducting business expenses isn't a subsidy.


----------



## danielpalos

Toddsterpatriot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes, that is the present situation. But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy. Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Well yes, that is the present situation.
> *
> Yes, one-sixth (or less) of installed capacity is actual output.
> *
> But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy.
> *
> Soon? When?
> 
> *Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> *
> Only when you're handing out taxpayer checks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?
> *
> Deducting business expenses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; the non-fossil fuel sector can do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, deducting business expenses isn't a subsidy.
Click to expand...

I believe we should be "sinking costs" into fusion (an energy with a future).



> Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (annual subsidy: $14 billion)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

danielpalos said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Well yes, that is the present situation.
> *
> Yes, one-sixth (or less) of installed capacity is actual output.
> *
> But at the rate that wind and solar are increasing, soon they will be our primary source of energy.
> *
> Soon? When?
> 
> *Compounding percentages grow rather quickly.
> *
> Only when you're handing out taxpayer checks.
> 
> 
> 
> Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Why any subsidies at all, for the fossil fuel sector?
> *
> Deducting business expenses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope; the non-fossil fuel sector can do the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, deducting business expenses isn't a subsidy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe we should be "sinking costs" into fusion (an energy with a future).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels (annual subsidy: $14 billion)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Soon as you get a working reactor, let me know.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> WE are $19 trillion in debt because of social spending, not because of wars. Military spending is less than 20% of the budget.
> 
> All you leftwing cockroaches try to blame our fiscal problems on the military when the real cause is you.


Bullshit.  The military takes 50% of all discretionary spending.  These bullshit wars cost us $12 billion a month.  At least infrastructure projects put Americans back to work.


----------



## Billo_Really

danielpalos said:


> We need to audit our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror instead of the Fed.


Don't forget the poor.  We have a war on them to.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE are $19 trillion in debt because of social spending, not because of wars. Military spending is less than 20% of the budget.
> 
> All you leftwing cockroaches try to blame our fiscal problems on the military when the real cause is you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  The military takes 50% of all discretionary spending.  These bullshit wars cost us $12 billion a month.  At least infrastructure projects put Americans back to work.
Click to expand...


Why do you imagine the term "discretionary" makes a difference?   It's all discretionary.  That's just a sleazy way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for all their huge spending boondoggles, like Medicare.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Why do you imagine the term "discretionary" makes a difference?   It's all discretionary.  That's just a sleazy way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for all their huge spending boondoggles, like Medicare.


The defense budget is obscene and costs this country over $1 trillion a year in tax payer dollars.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you imagine the term "discretionary" makes a difference?   It's all discretionary.  That's just a sleazy way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for all their huge spending boondoggles, like Medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> The defense budget is obscene and costs this country over $1 trillion a year in tax payer dollars.
Click to expand...

Medicare, Medicaid and SS are the three biggest items in the budget.  The defense budget is not $1 trillion per year.  It's more like $600 billion.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Stripping the earth to extract phosphate, then shipping it by rail or trucks throughout the country to grow crops to burn as fuel is a net energy loss.

How much "green" do you see here?


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Medicare, Medicaid and SS are the three biggest items in the budget.  The defense budget is not $1 trillion per year.  It's more like $600 billion.


Bullshit.  When you add in the cost of these bullshit wars we've been fighting for over a decade and the operating costs of the over 1000 military bases we have all over the world, the cost to the American tax payer is well over a trillion dollars a year.


----------



## Billo_Really

Marion Morrison said:


> Stripping the earth to extract phosphate, then shipping it by rail or trucks throughout the country to grow crops to burn as fuel is a net energy loss.
> 
> How much "green" do you see here?


Howard Harding Jones didn't see any green, that's why he cut John Wayne.


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you imagine the term "discretionary" makes a difference?   It's all discretionary.  That's just a sleazy way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for all their huge spending boondoggles, like Medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> The defense budget is obscene and costs this country over $1 trillion a year in tax payer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Medicare, Medicaid and SS are the three biggest items in the budget.  The defense budget is not $1 trillion per year.  It's more like $600 billion.
Click to expand...

creative financing?  a war on terror is not cheap.  neither are alleged wars on crime, and drugs; which should be under defense spending, not social spending.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare, Medicaid and SS are the three biggest items in the budget.  The defense budget is not $1 trillion per year.  It's more like $600 billion.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  When you add in the cost of these bullshit wars we've been fighting for over a decade and the operating costs of the over 1000 military bases we have all over the world, the cost to the American tax payer is well over a trillion dollars a year.
Click to expand...

Those are already added in.


----------



## percysunshine

.
One of the laws of thermodynamics is that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

It isn't a popularity contest.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Those are already added in.


No, they are not.

The *defense budget* does not include...

_...additional military-related spending by the VA, CIA, Homeland Security, Energy, Justice or State Departments, nor interest payments on past military spending, which combine to raise the true cost of U.S. militarism to about *$1.3 trillion per year*, or one thirteenth of the U.S. economy._​
..._the DoD base budget does not include the cost of wars. _​Back to you...


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE are $19 trillion in debt because of social spending, not because of wars. Military spending is less than 20% of the budget.
> 
> All you leftwing cockroaches try to blame our fiscal problems on the military when the real cause is you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  The military takes 50% of all discretionary spending.  These bullshit wars cost us $12 billion a month.  At least infrastructure projects put Americans back to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you imagine the term "discretionary" makes a difference?   It's all discretionary.  That's just a sleazy way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for all their huge spending boondoggles, like Medicare.
Click to expand...

Man, I hope that you hit 65 busted flat on your ass, with a very bad back. What an asshole you are.


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you imagine the term "discretionary" makes a difference?   It's all discretionary.  That's just a sleazy way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for all their huge spending boondoggles, like Medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> The defense budget is obscene and costs this country over $1 trillion a year in tax payer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Medicare, Medicaid and SS are the three biggest items in the budget.  The defense budget is not $1 trillion per year.  It's more like $600 billion.
Click to expand...

Social Security pays for itself, you lying little cocksuck. Why don't you go to Somalia, so you can enjoy a society you approve of.


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are already added in.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> The *defense budget* does not include...
> 
> _...additional military-related spending by the VA, CIA, Homeland Security, Energy, Justice or State Departments, nor interest payments on past military spending, which combine to raise the true cost of U.S. militarism to about *$1.3 trillion per year*, or one thirteenth of the U.S. economy._​
> ..._the DoD base budget does not include the cost of wars. _​Back to you...
Click to expand...

Those aren't expenses you listed in your previous post, dipstick.  How long did it take you to look that idiocy up?  The Justice and State department budgets are not military spending.  Neither is Energy or Homeland security.  So your claim is still bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE are $19 trillion in debt because of social spending, not because of wars. Military spending is less than 20% of the budget.
> 
> All you leftwing cockroaches try to blame our fiscal problems on the military when the real cause is you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  The military takes 50% of all discretionary spending.  These bullshit wars cost us $12 billion a month.  At least infrastructure projects put Americans back to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you imagine the term "discretionary" makes a difference?   It's all discretionary.  That's just a sleazy way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for all their huge spending boondoggles, like Medicare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man, I hope that you hit 65 busted flat on your ass, with a very bad back. What an asshole you are.
Click to expand...

How would that make the military budget bigger than Social Security?  If I had invested all the money that I paid to FICA, I would be a very wealthy man.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you imagine the term "discretionary" makes a difference?   It's all discretionary.  That's just a sleazy way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility for all their huge spending boondoggles, like Medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> The defense budget is obscene and costs this country over $1 trillion a year in tax payer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Medicare, Medicaid and SS are the three biggest items in the budget.  The defense budget is not $1 trillion per year.  It's more like $600 billion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social Security pays for itself, you lying little cocksuck. Why don't you go to Somalia, so you can enjoy a society you approve of.
Click to expand...

Then the military budget also "pays for itself."

You're not too good in the logic department, are you?


----------



## danielpalos

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are already added in.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not.
> 
> The *defense budget* does not include...
> 
> _...additional military-related spending by the VA, CIA, Homeland Security, Energy, Justice or State Departments, nor interest payments on past military spending, which combine to raise the true cost of U.S. militarism to about *$1.3 trillion per year*, or one thirteenth of the U.S. economy._​
> ..._the DoD base budget does not include the cost of wars. _​Back to you...
Click to expand...

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror should be under defense spending.

Let's audit our extra-Constitutional warfare-State instead of the Fed!


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Those aren't expenses you listed in your previous post, dipstick.  How long did it take you to look that idiocy up?  The Justice and State department budgets are not military spending.  Neither is Energy or Homeland security.  So your claim is still bullshit.


Those are expenses you deliberately tried to leave out.  You also inferred the cost of the wars are included in the defense budget, which is total horseshit.

I've provided links to back up my claim and all you've done, is shoot off your big fucking mouth!


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't expenses you listed in your previous post, dipstick.  How long did it take you to look that idiocy up?  The Justice and State department budgets are not military spending.  Neither is Energy or Homeland security.  So your claim is still bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are expenses you deliberately tried to leave out.  You also inferred the cost of the wars are included in the defense budget, which is total horseshit.
> 
> I've provided links to back up my claim and all you've done, is shoot off your big fucking mouth!
Click to expand...


I leave those expense out because they aren't part of the Defense Dept budget.  How on earth do you justify including the Justice Dept budget as defense spending?

AS for the wars we've fought, they are included in the defense budget.  It's a leftwing myth that the aren't.


----------



## Billo_Really

bripat9643 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't expenses you listed in your previous post, dipstick.  How long did it take you to look that idiocy up?  The Justice and State department budgets are not military spending.  Neither is Energy or Homeland security.  So your claim is still bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are expenses you deliberately tried to leave out.  You also inferred the cost of the wars are included in the defense budget, which is total horseshit.
> 
> I've provided links to back up my claim and all you've done, is shoot off your big fucking mouth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I leave those expense out because they aren't part of the Defense Dept budget.  How on earth do you justify including the Justice Dept budget as defense spending?
> 
> AS for the wars we've fought, they are included in the defense budget.  It's a leftwing myth that the aren't.
Click to expand...

And more mouth shooting.

_The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the federal budget, which are *not included* in the military budget... _​


----------



## bripat9643

Billo_Really said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't expenses you listed in your previous post, dipstick.  How long did it take you to look that idiocy up?  The Justice and State department budgets are not military spending.  Neither is Energy or Homeland security.  So your claim is still bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are expenses you deliberately tried to leave out.  You also inferred the cost of the wars are included in the defense budget, which is total horseshit.
> 
> I've provided links to back up my claim and all you've done, is shoot off your big fucking mouth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I leave those expense out because they aren't part of the Defense Dept budget.  How on earth do you justify including the Justice Dept budget as defense spending?
> 
> AS for the wars we've fought, they are included in the defense budget.  It's a leftwing myth that the aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And more mouth shooting.
> 
> _The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the federal budget, which are *not included* in the military budget... _​
Click to expand...

What's the source of the quote?


----------

