# The 8 Most Exciting Solar Projects in the U.S. [Updated]



## Synthaholic

This is from September, but it's still relevent and obviously needed on this forum, for those who still think solar power is a pipe dream that will never happen.

It IS happening.


The 8 Most Exciting Solar Projects in the U.S. [Updated]








Sunlight is the world's most plentiful resource. That is, of course, why the United States has scrambled in recent years to supplant dirty, nonrenewable energy sources with ambitious solar projects. Below, we look at some of the most exciting solar projects--both existing and planned--in the country.

1. *Solar Energy Generating Systems*
Located in California's Mojave desert, the Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) plant is the largest active solar energy facility in the world. The Luz International-designed solar thermal plant has an installed capacity of 354 MW, features 936,384 parabolic mirrors and spans more than 1,600 acres. In total, SEGS provides power for 232,500 homes. The nine solar plants at the site were built between 1984 and 1990.

2. *Nevada Solar One*
This Boulder City, Nevada plant, completed in 2007, is the largest solar thermal plant to be built since 1991. The $266 million concentrated solar plant has a maximum capacity of 75 MW, and produces 134 million kilowatt hours of power each year. Components for the plant come from a variety of suppliers, including Siemens, Flabeg AG, Schott Solar, and Solel Solar Systems.








3. *Solana Generating Station*
This Gila Bend, Arizona plant will have a capacity of 280 MW--enough to power 70,000 homes--when it is completed in 2013. Arizona Public Service has already contracted to buy all of the produced power from Solana's $2 billion concentrated solar plant. The Abengoa-manufactured plant is expected to create 1,500 construction jobs and 85 full-time positions.

*snip*

7. *Blythe Solar Power Project*
If built, this proposed $6 billion solar thermal project in Blythe, California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it the largest solar power plant in the world. That's a big "if," though--Solar Millennium and Chevron Energy Solutions have yet to get the project approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. _Update: _The project was approved by the CPUC this week. The next step is to get final approval from the Bureau of Land Management.​


----------



## GHook93

Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?

My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!


----------



## Synthaholic

GHook93 said:


> *Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power.* For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!


 

Yeah, that's a tough question.  

Try reading the OP!

#1 says SEGS provides power for 232,500 homes.

#3 says 70,000 homes.

#7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it the largest solar power plant in the world".  That will cover close to a million homes.


----------



## Big Fitz

GHook93 said:


> Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!


Better question.  How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?


----------



## Big Fitz

> #7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it  the largest solar power plant in the world".  That will cover close to a  million homes.



While the sun is shining.  Oops.


----------



## GHook93

Synthaholic said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power.* For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a tough question.
> 
> Try reading the OP!
> 
> #1 says SEGS provides power for 232,500 homes.
> 
> #3 says 70,000 homes.
> 
> #7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it the largest solar power plant in the world".  That will cover close to a million homes.
Click to expand...


What percentage of CA will be powered by solar power after these projects?


----------



## Mad Scientist

Big Fitz said:


> #7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it  the largest solar power plant in the world".  That will cover close to a  million homes.
> 
> 
> 
> While the sun is shining.  Oops.
Click to expand...

The plants are located in Mojave California, Boulder City Nevada and Gila Bend Arizona and Blythe California where the sun shines 300+ days a year! *Everywhere else: No dice.*


----------



## Big Fitz

Mad Scientist said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it  the largest solar power plant in the world".  That will cover close to a  million homes.
> 
> 
> 
> While the sun is shining.  Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The plants are located in Mojave California, Boulder City Nevada and Gila Bend Arizona and Blythe California where the sun shines 300+ days a year! *Everywhere else: No dice.*
Click to expand...

And even in the Mojave, night still happens.


----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!
> 
> 
> 
> Better question.  How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?
Click to expand...


It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil.  It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.


----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the sun is shining.  Oops.
> 
> 
> 
> The plants are located in Mojave California, Boulder City Nevada and Gila Bend Arizona and Blythe California where the sun shines 300+ days a year! *Everywhere else: No dice.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And even in the Mojave, night still happens.
Click to expand...


According to conservative icon Dan Quayle, that's when you'd travel to the sun and grab up even more energy.


----------



## Big Fitz

> It's not meant to be the only source of power



Bullshit.  

Oh wait wait...you're right.  They want wind to take care of the rest.


----------



## Big Fitz

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plants are located in Mojave California, Boulder City Nevada and Gila Bend Arizona and Blythe California where the sun shines 300+ days a year! *Everywhere else: No dice.*
> 
> 
> 
> And even in the Mojave, night still happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to conservative icon Dan Quayle, that's when you'd travel to the sun and grab up even more energy.
Click to expand...

Dan Quayle?  Really?  Didn't making Quayle jokes go out of style with Murphy Brown?

Link to the quote?


----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> It's not meant to be the only source of power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Oh wait wait...you're right.  They want wind to take care of the rest.
Click to expand...


Who is "they"?   You got a problem with trying to wean ourselves off of foreign oil?  You're a joke and another on the list of poster children for the Dumbing Down of America!!!


----------



## Big Fitz

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be the only source of power
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Oh wait wait...you're right.  They want wind to take care of the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they"?   You got a problem with trying to wean ourselves off of foreign oil?  You're a joke and another on the list of poster children for the Dumbing Down of America!!!
Click to expand...

morons like you who are scared all to pieces of every reliable piece of energy generating tech and fuel out there preferring to rely on failed, unproven and untested industries that cannot sustain or replace things that work perfectly well.

To be thought stupid by ecofascists is to be wise in reality.


----------



## konradv

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Oh wait wait...you're right.  They want wind to take care of the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "they"?   You got a problem with trying to wean ourselves off of foreign oil?  You're a joke and another on the list of poster children for the Dumbing Down of America!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> morons like you who are scared all to pieces of every reliable piece of energy generating tech and fuel out there preferring to rely on failed, unproven and untested industries that cannot sustain or replace things that work perfectly well.
> 
> To be thought stupid by ecofascists is to be wise in reality.
Click to expand...


Must be getting to you, Fitz.   Not a single piece of useful info, just trash talk.  That might work with the other brain-dead wingnuts, but those of us with intelligence only   at what passes for debate these days.


----------



## driveby

Synthaholic said:


> This is from September, but it's still relevent and obviously needed on this forum, for those who still think solar power is a pipe dream that will never happen.
> 
> It IS happening.
> 
> 
> The 8 Most Exciting Solar Projects in the U.S. [Updated]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunlight is the world's most plentiful resource. That is, of course, why the United States has scrambled in recent years to supplant dirty, nonrenewable energy sources with ambitious solar projects. Below, we look at some of the most exciting solar projects--both existing and planned--in the country.
> 
> 1. *Solar Energy Generating Systems*
> Located in California's Mojave desert, the Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) plant is the largest active solar energy facility in the world. The Luz International-designed solar thermal plant has an installed capacity of 354 MW, features 936,384 parabolic mirrors and spans more than 1,600 acres. In total, SEGS provides power for 232,500 homes. The nine solar plants at the site were built between 1984 and 1990.
> 
> 2. *Nevada Solar One*
> This Boulder City, Nevada plant, completed in 2007, is the largest solar thermal plant to be built since 1991. The $266 million concentrated solar plant has a maximum capacity of 75 MW, and produces 134 million kilowatt hours of power each year. Components for the plant come from a variety of suppliers, including Siemens, Flabeg AG, Schott Solar, and Solel Solar Systems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Solana Generating Station*
> This Gila Bend, Arizona plant will have a capacity of 280 MW--enough to power 70,000 homes--when it is completed in 2013. Arizona Public Service has already contracted to buy all of the produced power from Solana's $2 billion concentrated solar plant. The Abengoa-manufactured plant is expected to create 1,500 construction jobs and 85 full-time positions.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> 7. *Blythe Solar Power Project*
> If built, this proposed $6 billion solar thermal project in Blythe, California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it the largest solar power plant in the world. That's a big "if," though--Solar Millennium and Chevron Energy Solutions have yet to get the project approved by the California Public Utilities Commission. _Update: _The project was approved by the CPUC this week. The next step is to get final approval from the Bureau of Land Management.​




oh neat....


----------



## Skull Pilot

What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?


----------



## Synthaholic

GHook93 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power.* For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a tough question.
> 
> Try reading the OP!
> 
> #1 says SEGS provides power for 232,500 homes.
> 
> #3 says 70,000 homes.
> 
> #7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it the largest solar power plant in the world".  That will cover close to a million homes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percentage of CA will be powered by solar power after these projects?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know.  But if you click the link, you will see that a number of these projects are in California.  So even if it ends up being 5 million homes, that covers close to 20 million people, figuring an average of 4 people per household.

That's 5 million houses/20 million people who are not using oil, lessening demand, lessening cost.


----------



## Mr. H.

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!
> 
> 
> 
> Better question.  How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil.  It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.
Click to expand...


1% of U.S. electricity is generated using crude oil. 

So... this must be what Obama was talking about in his State of the Union Speech. He said we need one million electric cars on the road, and he said we will pay for it by taxing the domestic petroleum industry (to the tune of $40 billion as per his budget proposals). 

WIN THE FUTURE RIGHT HERE FOLKS. STEP RIGHT UP.


----------



## Synthaholic

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be the only source of power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Oh wait wait...you're right.  They want wind to take care of the rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they"?   You got a problem with trying to wean ourselves off of foreign oil?  You're a joke and another on the list of poster children for the Dumbing Down of America!!!
Click to expand...

They act all threatened when you say you want to lessen dependency on foreign oil!  

Why do they love the Saudis so much?


----------



## Mr. H.

Synthaholic said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Oh wait wait...you're right.  They want wind to take care of the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "they"?   You got a problem with trying to wean ourselves off of foreign oil?  You're a joke and another on the list of poster children for the Dumbing Down of America!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They act all threatened when you say you want to lessen dependency on foreign oil!
> 
> Why do they love the Saudis so much?
Click to expand...


We love Canada and Mexico even more...

CANADA 1,975 
MEXICO 1,229 
SAUDI ARABIA 1,119 

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries


----------



## Synthaholic

Skull Pilot said:


> What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?


Whatever it is, you can be guaranteed that part of it is not the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, and Overhead Observers protecting these plants 24/7 from radical Americans trying to blow it up.

So add the cost of us being in the Middle East to the billions in subsidies that the oil industry gets.


----------



## Mr. H.

Synthaholic said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever it is, you can be guaranteed that part of it is not the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, and Overhead Observers protecting these plants 24/7 from radical Americans trying to blow it up.
> 
> So add the cost of us being in the Middle East to the billions in subsidies that the oil industry gets.
Click to expand...


A good arguement for more drilling here in the U.S. 

Drill here, drill now, pay less.


----------



## Synthaholic

Mr. H. said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better question. How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil. It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *1% of U.S. electricity is generated using crude oil. *
> 
> So... this must be what Obama was talking about in his State of the Union Speech. He said we need one million electric cars on the road, and he said we will pay for it by taxing the domestic petroleum industry (to the tune of $40 billion as per his budget proposals).
> 
> WIN THE FUTURE RIGHT HERE FOLKS. STEP RIGHT UP.
Click to expand...

 

Link?


----------



## Mr. H.

Synthaholic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil. It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1% of U.S. electricity is generated using crude oil. *
> 
> So... this must be what Obama was talking about in his State of the Union Speech. He said we need one million electric cars on the road, and he said we will pay for it by taxing the domestic petroleum industry (to the tune of $40 billion as per his budget proposals).
> 
> WIN THE FUTURE RIGHT HERE FOLKS. STEP RIGHT UP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Your keyboard broken?


----------



## Synthaholic

Mr. H. said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "they"?   You got a problem with trying to wean ourselves off of foreign oil?  You're a joke and another on the list of poster children for the Dumbing Down of America!!!
> 
> 
> 
> They act all threatened when you say you want to lessen dependency on foreign oil!
> 
> Why do they love the Saudis so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We love Canada and Mexico even more...
> 
> CANADA 1,975
> MEXICO 1,229
> SAUDI ARABIA 1,119
> 
> Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries
Click to expand...

Liberals love America more than we love Canada and Mexico.  That's why we want non-polluting energy choices.


----------



## Synthaholic

Mr. H. said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever it is, you can be guaranteed that part of it is not the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, and Overhead Observers protecting these plants 24/7 from radical Americans trying to blow it up.
> 
> So add the cost of us being in the Middle East to the billions in subsidies that the oil industry gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good arguement for more drilling here in the U.S.
> 
> Drill here, drill now, pay less.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean "Spill Here, Spill Now"?

American oil burns just as dirty as Canada's.


----------



## Synthaholic

Mr. H. said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> *1% of U.S. electricity is generated using crude oil. *
> 
> So... this must be what Obama was talking about in his State of the Union Speech. He said we need one million electric cars on the road, and he said we will pay for it by taxing the domestic petroleum industry (to the tune of $40 billion as per his budget proposals).
> 
> WIN THE FUTURE RIGHT HERE FOLKS. STEP RIGHT UP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your keyboard broken?
Click to expand...

Did you already post the link?


----------



## Mr. H.

Non polluting energy sources? 

Oxymoron?


----------



## Synthaholic

Mr. H. said:


> Non polluting energy sources?
> 
> Oxymoron?


No.


----------



## Big Fitz

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "they"?   You got a problem with trying to wean ourselves off of foreign oil?  You're a joke and another on the list of poster children for the Dumbing Down of America!!!
> 
> 
> 
> morons like you who are scared all to pieces of every reliable piece of energy generating tech and fuel out there preferring to rely on failed, unproven and untested industries that cannot sustain or replace things that work perfectly well.
> 
> To be thought stupid by ecofascists is to be wise in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be getting to you, Fitz.   Not a single piece of useful info, just trash talk.  That might work with the other brain-dead wingnuts, but those of us with intelligence only   at what passes for debate these days.
Click to expand...

Konnie... I've never seen you post anything with intelligence.  When your arguments are debunkable sans research by common sense and simple questions, I don't need to post dozens of links.

Reminds me of when the first joint space mission between the US and USSR happened.  The Astronauts were bragging about their pen that writes upside down and in zero g.  When informed that the Cosmonauts did not use such a tool, they asked smuggly "what do YOU use then?"  

The Cosmonaut held up a pencil.

Your rube goldberg solutions to the energy non-crisis are pointless and comical.  From a threat that doesn't exist, to a shortage that is imaginary, all for the sake of a political system and philosophy that is a lethal failure every time it's tried... yet you tards KEEP going back to it (the definition of insanity right there).  The solution is simple.  Make something better than 'fossil fuels', fission and hydropower, and the world will beat a path to your door.

Till then, you're a fucking joke.


----------



## Mr. H.

Synthaholic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever it is, you can be guaranteed that part of it is not the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, and Overhead Observers protecting these plants 24/7 from radical Americans trying to blow it up.
> 
> So add the cost of us being in the Middle East to the billions in subsidies that the oil industry gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good arguement for more drilling here in the U.S.
> 
> Drill here, drill now, pay less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you mean "Spill Here, Spill Now"?
> 
> American oil burns just as dirty as Canada's.
Click to expand...

Firstly, in some instances links are redundant. If you care to corroberate then make a few mouse clicks to satisfy your own curiosity.

Drill and spill? Is that your impression? It's not a perfect industry- none are- not even your allegedly non-polluting green technologies. But after 150 years and billlions of barrels produced, I think it's got a pretty good track record.

Oil produced within the U.S. is in fact a much cleaner fuel, and a higher BTU content fuel than even Canada's. But more importantly, the value of those U.S. barrels stays in the U.S. And so do the jobs. 


Synthaholic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non polluting energy sources?
> 
> Oxymoron?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


Then please edumicate me as to the processes involved in developing and bringing to market various green/alternative/renewable energies and how they are non-polluting from drawing board to construction.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Synthaholic said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever it is, you can be guaranteed that part of it is not the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, and Overhead Observers protecting these plants 24/7 from radical Americans trying to blow it up.
> 
> So add the cost of us being in the Middle East to the billions in subsidies that the oil industry gets.
Click to expand...


Do you even know where we get most of our oil from?


----------



## Synthaholic

Mr. H. said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good arguement for more drilling here in the U.S.
> 
> Drill here, drill now, pay less.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean "Spill Here, Spill Now"?
> 
> American oil burns just as dirty as Canada's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firstly, in some instances links are redundant. If you care to corroberate then make a few mouse clicks to satisfy your own curiosity.
Click to expand...

 
Sorry, that's not how it works.  If you make a statement in a factual manner, it's incumbent upon you to be able to back it up.



> Drill and spill? Is that your impression? It's not a perfect industry- none are- not even your allegedly non-polluting green technologies. But after 150 years and billlions of barrels produced, I think it's got a pretty good track record.


 
If you are making widgets, there is no need to be perfect.  When you are using public resources, with the possibility of ruining those resources, perfection is required.  Since they cannot provide that, their opportunities and access should be greatly curtailed.



> Oil produced within the U.S. is in fact a much cleaner fuel, and a higher BTU content fuel than even Canada's. But more importantly, the value of those U.S. barrels stays in the U.S. And so do the jobs.


 
That's very nice.  It's still not as clean as solar or wind.



Synthaholic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non polluting energy sources?
> 
> Oxymoron?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

 


> Then please edumicate me as to the processes involved in developing and bringing to market various green/alternative/renewable energies and how they are non-polluting from drawing board to construction.


 
No.  I'm not your teacher.  Do your own research.

You asked if "non-polluting energy sources" is an oxymoron.  It is not.  Wind is non-polluting.


----------



## Synthaholic

Skull Pilot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever it is, you can be guaranteed that part of it is not the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, and Overhead Observers protecting these plants 24/7 from radical Americans trying to blow it up.
> 
> So add the cost of us being in the Middle East to the billions in subsidies that the oil industry gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you even know where we get most of our oil from?
Click to expand...

Canada, Mexico, U.S., Venezuela.

Why does it matter?  It all pollutes.  It is all finite.  The huge increase in demand will only make gas prices rise higher and higher.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Mad Scientist said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it  the largest solar power plant in the world".  That will cover close to a  million homes.
> 
> 
> 
> While the sun is shining.  Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The plants are located in Mojave California, Boulder City Nevada and Gila Bend Arizona and Blythe California where the sun shines 300+ days a year! *Everywhere else: No dice.*
Click to expand...


"No dice" = No imagination.
Solar power can and will be used to produce hydrogen from water.  A clean process and a clean source of energy able to produce electricity everywhere.
I'm sure the conservatives of yesteryear opposed every new idea and project at the get-go; thank God for giving humanity a brain capable of imagining things, and some the courage to create them.


----------



## Synthaholic

Wry Catcher said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> While the sun is shining. Oops.
> 
> 
> 
> The plants are located in Mojave California, Boulder City Nevada and Gila Bend Arizona and Blythe California where the sun shines 300+ days a year! *Everywhere else: No dice.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "No dice" = No imagination.
> Solar power can and will be used to produce hydrogen from water. A clean process and a clean source of energy able to produce electricity everywhere.
> I'm sure the conservatives of yesteryear opposed every new idea and project at the get-go; thank God for giving humanity a brain capable of imagining things, and some the courage to create them.
Click to expand...

 

Chris Rock nailed it, while talking about curing diseases:

*"There's no money in the cure - the money is in the medicine.  THAT'S how you get paid!"*

 


It's the same thing with solar.  If I buy a system, I'm done.  If my house is running on sunshine, and I can charge up my auto every day on sunshine, then how is the oil industry getting paid?

That's why they are throwing millions and millions into lobbying Congress.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Synthaholic said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever it is, you can be guaranteed that part of it is not the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, and Overhead Observers protecting these plants 24/7 from radical Americans trying to blow it up.
> 
> So add the cost of us being in the Middle East to the billions in subsidies that the oil industry gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know where we get most of our oil from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Canada, Mexico, U.S., Venezuela.
> 
> Why does it matter?  It all pollutes.  It is all finite.  The huge increase in demand will only make gas prices rise higher and higher.
Click to expand...


So your argument about the money spent in the Middle east has absolutely nothing to do with the tax subsidies so called green energy companies eat up.


----------



## mdn2000

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!
> 
> 
> 
> Better question.  How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil.  It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.
Click to expand...


Name one power plant in California that uses foreign oil to produce electricity. You can not do it because its a lie that Solar Power reduces use of foreign oil.


----------



## mdn2000

Not mentioned is this is going to cost the tax payers 1.3 billion dollars, thats right, the same cost of a nuclear power plant that produces at least 1000 times more energy. Also not mentioned is this project is on public land, or government owned land, hence that is a huge subsidy, imagine if you had to by over 9 Square miles of land to build a Solar Plant, that cost alone would make it impossible. 

Oh well, fuck the public, give our money to Spanish and Israeli companies. Thats right, some of this project if not all is being made by a corporation in Israel. Not the place I would create jobs but I just pay tax and high electric rates in California.

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System BrightSource



> January 17, 2011 - On Friday January 14, 2011 Western Watersheds Project filed suit in federal court to halt construction of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System on 5.4 square miles of high quality habitat for the threatened Desert tortoise.
> 
> &#8220;No project can be considered clean or green when it involves destruction of habitat for a species listed under Endangered Species Act on this scale,&#8221; said Dr. Michael J. Connor, California Director for Western Watersheds Project. &#8220;The Department of Interior is tasked with siting energy projects in an environmentally sound manner. Instead it is allowing thousands of acres of important desert tortoise habitat to be bulldozed when there are alternative ways of generating power&#8221;


----------



## mdn2000

The cost is tremendous and completely ignored. This is being built with Federal tax money as well, the whole project is never going to turn a profit outside of mandating that consumers pay extremely high rates. These are contracts that gurantee rates for 20 years. Higher rates even if the cost of making electricity goes down. 

With technology, energy production has become cheaper if we use Nuclear power or Fossil fuel, yet we will pay more money and receive less power.

Whats next, a meter on our house that the California Government can use to turn off our power when the Solar plant fails to provide the advertised energy, oh, they have that already, its called a Smart Meter.
Wall Street Journal: The Great Transmission Heist - News - News Room - United States Senator Bob Corker, Tennessee



> Wall Street Journal: The Great Transmission Heist
> The latest scheme to subsidize solar and wind power to the detriment of rate payers.
> Review & Outlook
> November 8 2010 -
> 
> How would you like to pay higher utility bills to finance expensive electricity from solar and wind power, which you would never use? That's the issue now before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and it deserves more public and political scrutiny before it becomes a reality.
> 
> FERC has a draft rule that could effectively socialize the costs of paying for multi-billion dollar transmission lines to connect remote wind and solar projects to the nation's electric power grid. If FERC rules in favor of Big Wind and Big Solar, the new policy would add billions of dollars onto the utility bills of residents of at least a dozen states&#8212;including California, Michigan, Oregon and New York&#8212;that will receive little or no benefit from the new power line


----------



## mdn2000

Mad Scientist said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it  the largest solar power plant in the world".  That will cover close to a  million homes.
> 
> 
> 
> While the sun is shining.  Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The plants are located in Mojave California, Boulder City Nevada and Gila Bend Arizona and Blythe California where the sun shines 300+ days a year! *Everywhere else: No dice.*
Click to expand...


On average 300 days, meaning that some years you could have only 200 days of sun, what then?

What about the cost of food, cheap energy gives us cheap food, how are them food prices doing in your supermarket. 

Not only do we need cheap energy to make cheap food, it seems in California they will take farmers land out of production to build Green Energy. Less food, less energy to make food, sounds like a great plan.

Bottom line, the Green Energy lobby has won, Politicians and Corporations are transferring billions of tax payer money to their new BMW's and Mercedes. Nice expensive homes with the best food money can buy.

We get to foot the bill.


----------



## Synthaholic

Skull Pilot said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know where we get most of our oil from?
> 
> 
> 
> Canada, Mexico, U.S., Venezuela.
> 
> Why does it matter? It all pollutes. It is all finite. The huge increase in demand will only make gas prices rise higher and higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument about the money spent in the Middle east has absolutely nothing to do with the tax subsidies so called green energy companies eat up.
Click to expand...

They are two different arguments that come to the same conclusion: oil is an energy dead end, because it will soon become too expensive for average Americans. When that happens, our economy is going to suffer greatly.

This doesn't even address the rising food prices, due to the diversion of corn to help meet demand. It's one of the factors in the Egyption crisis.


----------



## Synthaholic

mdn2000 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better question. How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil. It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one power plant in California that uses foreign oil to produce electricity. You can not do it because its a lie that Solar Power reduces use of foreign oil.
Click to expand...

 

OK, I'll play along:  what DOES solar power reduce the use of?  What will we use less of with more solar power?


----------



## Synthaholic

mdn2000 said:


> Not mentioned is this is going to cost the tax payers 1.3 billion dollars, thats right, the same cost of a nuclear power plant that produces at least 1000 times more energy. Also not mentioned is this project is on public land, or government owned land, hence that is a huge subsidy, imagine if you had to by over 9 Square miles of land to build a Solar Plant, that cost alone would make it impossible.
> 
> Oh well, fuck the public, give our money to Spanish and Israeli companies. Thats right, some of this project if not all is being made by a corporation in Israel. Not the place I would create jobs but I just pay tax and high electric rates in California.
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System BrightSource
> 
> 
> 
> 
> January 17, 2011 - On Friday January 14, 2011 Western Watersheds Project filed suit in federal court to halt construction of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System on 5.4 square miles of high quality habitat for the threatened Desert tortoise.
> 
> &#8220;No project can be considered clean or green when it involves destruction of habitat for a species listed under Endangered Species Act on this scale,&#8221; said Dr. Michael J. Connor, California Director for Western Watersheds Project. &#8220;The Department of Interior is tasked with siting energy projects in an environmentally sound manner. Instead it is allowing thousands of acres of important desert tortoise habitat to be bulldozed when there are alternative ways of generating power&#8221;
Click to expand...

Oh, now wingnuts are concerned with turtle habitat.  That's funny!


----------



## mdn2000

Synthaholic said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil. It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one power plant in California that uses foreign oil to produce electricity. You can not do it because its a lie that Solar Power reduces use of foreign oil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll play along:  what DOES solar power reduce the use of?  What will we use less of with more solar power?
Click to expand...


We become more dependent on foreign oil, takes more oil to build power plants that produce less electricity. 

You will play along, grow up and get a brain, you say we will use less oil, show how, you cannot even begin to show one power plant using foreign oil, how do you save oil when its not be used to make electricity in California.

Common sense seems to be lacking. 

What about Bighorn Sheep, Coyotes, owls, the fox, the snake, the lizard. What about the desert flowers who seeds the birds eat, the seeds the mice eat, in which the hawks and eagles eat.

You do not give a shit about nothing but your own selfish self. 

Funny, we are the wingnuts you lie about, against the environment yet it was a Republican that created the EPA on the heels of the destruction caused to the environment by Democrat policies. 

Solar Energy, all this shows is when it comes to saving the earth, Democrats are hypocrites, or as the books all state, we must destroy the earth and the human race to save the earth.


----------



## whitehall

When are lefties gonna learn that trading 1,600 acres for a small return on power is not the way to go? I understand that most of the solar stuff is made in China because China has few restrictions on using hazardous material.


----------



## Old Rocks

GHook93 said:


> Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!



Ever try reading something before yapping?


----------



## Old Rocks

Big Fitz said:


> It's not meant to be the only source of power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Oh wait wait...you're right.  They want wind to take care of the rest.
Click to expand...


Wind, wave, nuclear, slow current, geo-thermal, yes, these can take care of the rest.

And just to remind you dingbats, solar thermal is 24/7.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?



Not near as many as oil, gas, and coal. And no exemptions from the clean water and air acts.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not near as many as oil, gas, and coal. And no exemptions from the clean water and air acts.
Click to expand...


Proof?


----------



## Old Rocks

whitehall said:


> When are lefties gonna learn that trading 1,600 acres for a small return on power is not the way to go? I understand that most of the solar stuff is made in China because China has few restrictions on using hazardous material.



I understand that dumb asses tend to yap before ever checking the veracity of their statements. Here in Oregon, we have several solar manufacturers with 200 to 500 megawatt capacity. That is a lot of solar panels. First Solar has a contract with China to provide panels for a 2 Gw plant in China, and First Solar is an American company.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not near as many as oil, gas, and coal. And no exemptions from the clean water and air acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof?
Click to expand...


Comments on: EPA: Natural Gas Driller Tainted Texas Aquifer - CBS News


----------



## Defiant1

Synthaholic said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a tough question.
> 
> Try reading the OP!
> 
> #1 says SEGS provides power for 232,500 homes.
> 
> #3 says 70,000 homes.
> 
> #7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it the largest solar power plant in the world".  That will cover close to a million homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of CA will be powered by solar power after these projects?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I don't know.  But if you click the link, you will see that a number of these projects are in California.  So even if it ends up being 5 million homes, that covers close to 20 million people, figuring an average of 4 people per household.
> 
> That's 5 million houses/20 million people who are not using oil, lessening demand, lessening cost.
Click to expand...


This can be great if it lessens the restrictions on CAFE standards.  I want to bring back mass production of muscle cars.

Oh to feel that thunder and speed once again.  Not have to drive around in pussy cars.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not near as many as oil, gas, and coal. And no exemptions from the clean water and air acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof?
Click to expand...


Public Citizen Climate and Energy

Environmental Law Institute

Obama Budget Erases Fossil Fuel Subsidies, Ramps Up Nuclear Spending | SolveClimate News

http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/07March/RL33763.pdf

The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) was introduced by the House
Democratic leadership to revise certain tax and royalty policies for oil and natural gas
and to use the resulting revenue to support a reserve for energy efficiency and
renewable energy. Title I proposes to repeal certain oil and natural gas tax subsidies,
and use the resulting revenue stream to support the reserve. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Title I would repeal about $7.7 billion in oil and
gas tax subsidies over the 10-year period from 2008 through 2017. In House floor
debate, opponents argued that the cut in oil and natural gas subsidies would dampen
production, cause job losses, and lead to higher prices for gasoline and other fuels.
Proponents counterargued that record profits show that the oil and natural gas
subsidies were not needed. The bill passed the House on January 18 by a vote of
264-123. This report presents a detailed review of oil and gas tax subsidies,
including those targeted for repeal by H.R. 6.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) included several oil
and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas
industry. In addition, EPACT05 provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil
and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11
years. Energy tax increases comprise the oil spill liability tax and the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank financing rate, both of which are imposed on oil
refineries. If these taxes are subtracted from the tax subsidies, the oil and gas
refinery and distribution sector received a net tax increase of $1,356 million ($2,857
million minus $1,501 million).


----------



## Old Rocks

Defiant1 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of CA will be powered by solar power after these projects?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know.  But if you click the link, you will see that a number of these projects are in California.  So even if it ends up being 5 million homes, that covers close to 20 million people, figuring an average of 4 people per household.
> 
> That's 5 million houses/20 million people who are not using oil, lessening demand, lessening cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This can be great if it lessens the restrictions on CAFE standards.  I want to bring back mass production of muscle cars.
> 
> Oh to feel that thunder and speed once again.  Not have to drive around in pussy cars.
Click to expand...


I was building engines when I was in high school in the late fifties. Are you so lazy or dumb that you cannot build them now with so much more information available?

There is no law against you building a muscle car for yourself. There are plenty of usable bodies in the junkyards, and large bore engines that you can build to your heart's content.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not near as many as oil, gas, and coal. And no exemptions from the clean water and air acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Public Citizen Climate and Energy
> 
> Environmental Law Institute
> 
> Obama Budget Erases Fossil Fuel Subsidies, Ramps Up Nuclear Spending | SolveClimate News
> 
> http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/07March/RL33763.pdf
> 
> The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) was introduced by the House
> Democratic leadership to revise certain tax and royalty policies for oil and natural gas
> and to use the resulting revenue to support a reserve for energy efficiency and
> renewable energy. Title I proposes to repeal certain oil and natural gas tax subsidies,
> and use the resulting revenue stream to support the reserve. The Congressional
> Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Title I would repeal about $7.7 billion in oil and
> gas tax subsidies over the 10-year period from 2008 through 2017. In House floor
> debate, opponents argued that the cut in oil and natural gas subsidies would dampen
> production, cause job losses, and lead to higher prices for gasoline and other fuels.
> Proponents counterargued that record profits show that the oil and natural gas
> subsidies were not needed. The bill passed the House on January 18 by a vote of
> 264-123. This report presents a detailed review of oil and gas tax subsidies,
> including those targeted for repeal by H.R. 6.
> The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) included several oil
> and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas
> industry. In addition, EPACT05 provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil
> and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11
> years. Energy tax increases comprise the oil spill liability tax and the Leaking
> Underground Storage Tank financing rate, both of which are imposed on oil
> refineries. If these taxes are subtracted from the tax subsidies, the oil and gas
> refinery and distribution sector received a net tax increase of $1,356 million ($2,857
> million minus $1,501 million).
Click to expand...


Nothing about how much so called green energy has received?

You contention was the green energy gets way less in tax subsidies.  All you have shown in the oil gets subsidies (which btw I do not agree with)


----------



## TacomaJPP

I'm new to the board, but would like to interject my .02 here.

1) Solar will never be the primary energy source for all electrical needs....nor is it meant to be. However, enough solar energy hits the entire earth everyday to power the needs of mankind (at our current demands) for 27 years. Again, the problem would be harnessing that energy.....ie, solar panels floating on the ocean and covering every square inch of earth....not gonna happen, but it does prove the point that a huge potential is solar energy. 

Twenty-one percent (21%) of electrical consumption in the US is attributed to residential needs. That's a healthy chunk of electrical energy. If we were able to outfit most homes with efficient electrical panels and reduce that demand by 75%, that would be substantial...however, that would take decades.

2) Wind is not very viable. It is random, unpredictable, and the most expensive form of alterative energy (to fossil fuels) with respect to watt / $. Sorry, it is. 

3) Geothermal isn't bad and could really be a great addition to residential forms of heating/cooling. Prices are coming down in the next decade or so, it may be much more affordable for the average American home. However, right now, where the average heating/cooling unit is about $6k, the average G/T unit is about 3x that.

4) Hydro-electric is a very sustainable and clean form of energy. In my home state, Tennessee, nearly 20% of power is derived from hydroelectric.

5) Nuclear. Nuclear is the short-term answer to a medium range problem. We will not be able to build enough windmills, solar panels, etc to sustain our medium term needs (<50 years). This can be done through nuclear energy. Nuclear is the cheapest form of alternative energy WRT watt/$. It is safe and clean and is sustainable and attainable and will power our needs.

6) Tidal technology is progressing and some potential exists with this technology, but again, it will take years to make this a sustainable energy solution.

The problem is that we are now facing energy problems and anything other than nuclear is not proven and efficient. Most other forms of energy are still very expensive, very under-powered, and will take decades to get to the level of viability. However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue alternative energy sources. We must still realize that in 100 years from now, our problems will be more severe and the decisions we make today will consequences on those people then.

Regardless, it is NOT the place of the US government to step in and dictate every single thing and pay for unsustainable subsidies. We are broke. We have no money to pay for these things, PERIOD. If the government wants to stem creative and innovative solutions, I have two simple solutions:

A) Implement Trade Reciprocity. Simply apply the trade rules to other countries that they apply to us.

B) Cut income and business taxes to a flat 10% and be done. Businessess would be encourage to stay in the US instead of heading to Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Panama, etc. With their extra revenue, money could be invested in forging ahead with R&D for future technology. But by no means will the US be successful in the long term by the subsidy system. We will fail. It's American ingenuity and spirit that will save our country, not bought-and-paid for DC politicians.


----------



## Synthaholic

Welcome to the board!

I was with you there until the last paragraph, when you ran off the rails.


----------



## Old Rocks

TacomaJPP said:


> I'm new to the board, but would like to interject my .02 here.
> 
> *Welcome!*
> 
> 1) Solar will never be the primary energy source for all electrical needs....nor is it meant to be. However, enough solar energy hits the entire earth everyday to power the needs of mankind (at our current demands) for 27 years. Again, the problem would be harnessing that energy.....ie, solar panels floating on the ocean and covering every square inch of earth....not gonna happen, but it does prove the point that a huge potential is solar energy.
> 
> Twenty-one percent (21%) of electrical consumption in the US is attributed to residential needs. That's a healthy chunk of electrical energy. If we were able to outfit most homes with efficient electrical panels and reduce that demand by 75%, that would be substantial...however, that would take decades.
> 
> *Well said, however I think that as solar becomes more efficient and cheaper, it will be installed much more rapidly than you predict.*
> 
> 2) Wind is not very viable. It is random, unpredictable, and the most expensive form of alterative energy (to fossil fuels) with respect to watt / $. Sorry, it is.
> 
> *You are wrong here concerning the cost. At present, wind in many places can be installed at less per watt then dirty coal. But you are correct on it's undependability in any one locality. However, a real nationwide grid would go far to alleviate that problem.*
> 
> 3) Geothermal isn't bad and could really be a great addition to residential forms of heating/cooling. Prices are coming down in the next decade or so, it may be much more affordable for the average American home. However, right now, where the average heating/cooling unit is about $6k, the average G/T unit is about 3x that.
> 
> *Geothermal has great promise. Google what a MIT research team has to say concerning its potential.*
> 
> 4) Hydro-electric is a very sustainable and clean form of energy. In my home state, Tennessee, nearly 20% of power is derived from hydroelectric.
> 
> *Very dependable. And not many potential sites left here in the Western US.*
> 
> 5) Nuclear. Nuclear is the short-term answer to a medium range problem. We will not be able to build enough windmills, solar panels, etc to sustain our medium term needs (<50 years). This can be done through nuclear energy. Nuclear is the cheapest form of alternative energy WRT watt/$. It is safe and clean and is sustainable and attainable and will power our needs.
> 
> *Nuclear, particularly the fourth and fifth generation type, have great promise. But, thus far, nuclear has been very expensive power.*
> 
> 
> 
> 6) Tidal technology is progressing and some potential exists with this technology, but again, it will take years to make this a sustainable energy solution.
> 
> *We are working with that in Oregon. Yes, it will take time. Actually there is a developing technology that holds much more promise, and that is slow current.*
> 
> Michael Bernitsas -- VIVACE : Vortex-Induced Vibrations for Clean Aquatic Energy
> 
> The problem is that we are now facing energy problems and anything other than nuclear is not proven and efficient. Most other forms of energy are still very expensive, very under-powered, and will take decades to get to the level of viability. However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue alternative energy sources. We must still realize that in 100 years from now, our problems will be more severe and the decisions we make today will consequences on those people then.
> 
> Regardless, it is NOT the place of the US government to step in and dictate every single thing and pay for unsustainable subsidies. We are broke. We have no money to pay for these things, PERIOD. If the government wants to stem creative and innovative solutions, I have two simple solutions:
> 
> A) Implement Trade Reciprocity. Simply apply the trade rules to other countries that they apply to us.
> 
> B) Cut income and business taxes to a flat 10% and be done. Businessess would be encourage to stay in the US instead of heading to Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Panama, etc. With their extra revenue, money could be invested in forging ahead with R&D for future technology. But by no means will the US be successful in the long term by the subsidy system. We will fail. It's American ingenuity and spirit that will save our country, not bought-and-paid for DC politicians.



Thus far, I see no hope for a single level income and business tax bringing enough income to pay for the government that we expect.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Trillion dollar government solar projects are a boondoggle just waiting to happen.

Tell me why do we need to uglify acres of wilderness for huge solar farms when we already have acres of south and southwest facing rooftops?

Leasing America's Rooftops for Solar Energy | Smart Journalism. Real Solutions. Miller-McCune.

The government could give tax credits to utilities who install solar panels and the utilities could pay the people who own the rooftops by supplying electricity at a reduced rate.

It's a simple and elegant solution which is probably why the idiots in DC haven't thought of it.


----------



## editec

Solar generated power is certainly_ a part of the overall_ approach we ought to be taking to our overall energy needs.

Whining about the fact that we must invest in that industry it is just silly.

We've invested trillions in oil production over the years.

Why do you think we've spend a cool trillion or so in the last ten years occupying Iraq?


----------



## Skull Pilot

editec said:


> Solar generated power is certainly_ a part of the overall_ approach we ought to be taking to our overall energy needs.
> 
> Whining about the fact that we must invest in that industry it is just silly.
> 
> We've invested trillions in oil production over the years.
> 
> Why do you think we've spend a cool trillion or so in the last ten years occupying Iraq?



And we hardly get any oil from Iraq.

We don't need huge trillion dollar wind and solar farms subsidized by tax dollars in order to solve our energy needs.


----------



## Mr. H.

editec said:


> Solar generated power is certainly_ a part of the overall_ approach we ought to be taking to our overall energy needs.
> 
> Whining about the fact that we must invest in that industry it is just silly.
> 
> We've invested trillions in oil production over the years.
> 
> Why do you think we've spend a cool trillion or so in the last ten years occupying Iraq?



Here's my bitch fest: 

Yes- alternatives/renewables/bio-fuels/etc. can and should be an integral part of the overall approach BUT creating artificial markets and mandating consumer habits is not a wise course. 

Congress and the public are absolutely blind to the power wielded by the agriculture industry in this country. They are manipulating markets and diverting food away from world supply stocks for the sake of larger profits in fuels- profits afforded by these fuel markets that were created by sham science and convoluted goals. 

Using the Iraq argument as a source for oil supply is just another tool to discredit a truly productive industry, kill U.S. domestic hydrocarbon production, and promote the agenda of the "green revolution".

And worst of all - the total disregard to the importance of the U.S. hydrocarbon industry and the role it plays in supplying stable, secure, market-driven energy and job creation and economic growth in our own country. 

The kicker- a President that continually brow-beats and berates this domestic industry in the name of pet projects like "putting one million electric cars on the road". How to pay for it? His budget contains over $40 billion in taxes on one particular industry- singled out for its success and contributions to this nation. 

So if you're going to address an "overall approach", start with what works and has been working for over 150 years in this country.


----------



## mdn2000

TacomaJPP said:


> I'm new to the board, but would like to interject my .02 here.
> 
> 1) Solar will never be the primary energy source for all electrical needs....nor is it meant to be. However, enough solar energy hits the entire earth everyday to power the needs of mankind (at our current demands) for 27 years. Again, the problem would be harnessing that energy.....ie, solar panels floating on the ocean and covering every square inch of earth....not gonna happen, but it does prove the point that a huge potential is solar energy.
> 
> Twenty-one percent (21%) of electrical consumption in the US is attributed to residential needs. That's a healthy chunk of electrical energy. If we were able to outfit most homes with efficient electrical panels and reduce that demand by 75%, that would be substantial...however, that would take decades.
> 
> 2) Wind is not very viable. It is random, unpredictable, and the most expensive form of alterative energy (to fossil fuels) with respect to watt / $. Sorry, it is.
> 
> 3) Geothermal isn't bad and could really be a great addition to residential forms of heating/cooling. Prices are coming down in the next decade or so, it may be much more affordable for the average American home. However, right now, where the average heating/cooling unit is about $6k, the average G/T unit is about 3x that.
> 
> 4) Hydro-electric is a very sustainable and clean form of energy. In my home state, Tennessee, nearly 20% of power is derived from hydroelectric.
> 
> 5) Nuclear. Nuclear is the short-term answer to a medium range problem. We will not be able to build enough windmills, solar panels, etc to sustain our medium term needs (<50 years). This can be done through nuclear energy. Nuclear is the cheapest form of alternative energy WRT watt/$. It is safe and clean and is sustainable and attainable and will power our needs.
> 
> 6) Tidal technology is progressing and some potential exists with this technology, but again, it will take years to make this a sustainable energy solution.
> 
> The problem is that we are now facing energy problems and anything other than nuclear is not proven and efficient. Most other forms of energy are still very expensive, very under-powered, and will take decades to get to the level of viability. However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue alternative energy sources. We must still realize that in 100 years from now, our problems will be more severe and the decisions we make today will consequences on those people then.
> 
> Regardless, it is NOT the place of the US government to step in and dictate every single thing and pay for unsustainable subsidies. We are broke. We have no money to pay for these things, PERIOD. If the government wants to stem creative and innovative solutions, I have two simple solutions:
> 
> A) Implement Trade Reciprocity. Simply apply the trade rules to other countries that they apply to us.
> 
> B) Cut income and business taxes to a flat 10% and be done. Businessess would be encourage to stay in the US instead of heading to Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Panama, etc. With their extra revenue, money could be invested in forging ahead with R&D for future technology. But by no means will the US be successful in the long term by the subsidy system. We will fail. It's American ingenuity and spirit that will save our country, not bought-and-paid for DC politicians.



1. Solar requires massive rate increases and raising taxes, Solar produces so little energy they are now designing Natural Gas Boilers into Solar plants, further Solar has failed in 
Spain, ever here the one how Spain's Solar producers were using diesel generators to make electricity. 

2. Wind is bad, not as bad as solar in cost and every other aspect, Geothermal is the most expensive form of energy, If your speaking of comparing Geothermal on the Commercial basis.

3. Geothermal for electrical power plants is the most polluting form of electricity, dead last, then I believe its solar, wind, coal. Again on a Commercial level, the most expensive.

4. Hydro, extremely expensive and cannot be expanded. Kills a shitload of fish. Actually complete rivers, breeding habitat. Always built with tax money. 

5. Nuclear is a short term answer, and Solar, Geothermal, and Wind is not an answer at all. Every Nuclear power plant built has a longer life then any Solar panel, Geothermal Plant or Wind Turbine. Nuclear power has proven itself to be a life long producer of energy. 40 years of operation and the waste of every nuclear plant in the USA will not fill a foot ball field. Continous power as in 400 days in a row without turning off, not once, never coming down for maintenance, no major component failures.


And yes all this means we should not spend another dime on Solar or Wind or Geothermal because that means passing laws making it legal to steal my money, literally. 

Who is the government to decide that I must take my money and give it to a private company of the governments choosing.


----------



## mdn2000

Skull Pilot said:


> Trillion dollar government solar projects are a boondoggle just waiting to happen.
> 
> Tell me why do we need to uglify acres of wilderness for huge solar farms when we already have acres of south and southwest facing rooftops?
> 
> Leasing America's Rooftops for Solar Energy | Smart Journalism. Real Solutions. Miller-McCune.
> 
> The government could give tax credits to utilities who install solar panels and the utilities could pay the people who own the rooftops by supplying electricity at a reduced rate.
> 
> It's a simple and elegant solution which is probably why the idiots in DC haven't thought of it.



In the USA we do not get to choose who sells us power, its all Federal and State regulations that give us power. Go ahead, try and buy your electricity from someone else.

So is it Constitutional to force me to pay higher electrical rates so that you can give money to private companies, literally forcing me to be customer of corporations, I must literally give my money to the rich person of governments choosing. 

This simple idea results in me being broke, poor. I can honestly not afford to pay more for electricity, 300$ a month is too much. 

I can not see how anyone can support Solar or Wind if you look at all the facts, the biggest fact being its too expensive for me to pay for. 

Disruptive Business Models: SCE ProLogis Solar Deal - Who pays?



> Yesterdays announcement  that ProLogis had agreed to lease roofspace to SCE for solar arrays raises some interesting issues for the industry, most importantly, can private sector PPA based solar integrators be competitive with public utilities?
> 
> Arno Harris thinks so. He is the CEO of Recurrent Energy, so of course he has to!
> 
> The biggest question is whether the public (and the many public watchdog groups) will support the rate hikes that SCE will propose to finance this project. Should ratepayers finance SCE's entry into yet another profitable business for SCE? What does this say about using regulated/captive customer bases as a competitive advantage over private enterprise?


----------



## Skull Pilot

mdn2000 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trillion dollar government solar projects are a boondoggle just waiting to happen.
> 
> Tell me why do we need to uglify acres of wilderness for huge solar farms when we already have acres of south and southwest facing rooftops?
> 
> Leasing America's Rooftops for Solar Energy | Smart Journalism. Real Solutions. Miller-McCune.
> 
> The government could give tax credits to utilities who install solar panels and the utilities could pay the people who own the rooftops by supplying electricity at a reduced rate.
> 
> It's a simple and elegant solution which is probably why the idiots in DC haven't thought of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the USA we do not get to choose who sells us power, its all Federal and State regulations that give us power. Go ahead, try and buy your electricity from someone else.
> 
> So is it Constitutional to force me to pay higher electrical rates so that you can give money to private companies, literally forcing me to be customer of corporations, I must literally give my money to the rich person of governments choosing.
> 
> This simple idea results in me being broke, poor. I can honestly not afford to pay more for electricity, 300$ a month is too much.
> 
> I can not see how anyone can support Solar or Wind if you look at all the facts, the biggest fact being its too expensive for me to pay for.
> 
> Disruptive Business Models: SCE ProLogis Solar Deal - Who pays?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterdays announcement  that ProLogis had agreed to lease roofspace to SCE for solar arrays raises some interesting issues for the industry, most importantly, can private sector PPA based solar integrators be competitive with public utilities?
> 
> Arno Harris thinks so. He is the CEO of Recurrent Energy, so of course he has to!
> 
> The biggest question is whether the public (and the many public watchdog groups) will support the rate hikes that SCE will propose to finance this project. Should ratepayers finance SCE's entry into yet another profitable business for SCE? What does this say about using regulated/captive customer bases as a competitive advantage over private enterprise?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You could be paid to put a solar panel on your roof.  Your taxes would not rise and your electric bill would decrease.

All it would take is some out of the box thinking by the idiots in DC to allow tax credits for companies that will provide and install solar panels on the rooftops of private citizens.  The tax breaks could be used to fund the project and you get paid by getting a reduced electrical rate.

We already have the rooftops and we wouldn't have to revamp the entire power grid to do it.


----------



## Dawg

Big Fitz said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!
> 
> 
> 
> Better question.  How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?
Click to expand...


And the best question of all. How many jobs will be created in America instead of sending our money to the middle east to build fortunes for Arab shieks, kings and terrorists? Go Solar. Keep the jobs and money in America!


----------



## TacomaJPP

Synthaholic said:


> Welcome to the board!
> 
> I was with you there until the last paragraph, when you ran off the rails.



Thank you for the welcome!

This seems to be a somewhat diverse forum which typically seems to generate a lot more debate than most forums I've been on.

So what exactly do you take issue with in this paragraph:



> (B) Cut income and business taxes to a flat 10% and be done. Businessess would be encourage to stay in the US instead of heading to Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Panama, etc. With their extra revenue, money could be invested in forging ahead with R&D for future technology. But by no means will the US be successful in the long term by the subsidy system. We will fail. It's American ingenuity and spirit that will save our country, not bought-and-paid for DC politicians.


----------



## Big Fitz

Dawg said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!
> 
> 
> 
> Better question.  How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the best question of all. How many jobs will be created in America instead of sending our money to the middle east to build fortunes for Arab shieks, kings and terrorists? Go Solar. Keep the jobs and money in America!
Click to expand...

Not as much as the oil, coal, natural gas, petrochemical industries and the infrastructure manufacturing required to build up our nation again.

You know.... the ones not bailed out by the government and therefore wasting tax dollars.


----------



## Synthaholic

TacomaJPP said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the board!
> 
> I was with you there until the last paragraph, when you ran off the rails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the welcome!
> 
> This seems to be a somewhat diverse forum which typically seems to generate a lot more debate than most forums I've been on.
> 
> So what exactly do you take issue with in this paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (B) Cut income and business taxes to a flat 10% and be done. Businessess would be encourage to stay in the US instead of heading to Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Panama, etc. With their extra revenue, money could be invested in forging ahead with R&D for future technology. But by no means will the US be successful in the long term by the subsidy system. We will fail. It's American ingenuity and spirit that will save our country, not bought-and-paid for DC politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It sounds like Fair Tax hoo-ha.


----------



## mdn2000

Skull Pilot said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trillion dollar government solar projects are a boondoggle just waiting to happen.
> 
> Tell me why do we need to uglify acres of wilderness for huge solar farms when we already have acres of south and southwest facing rooftops?
> 
> Leasing America's Rooftops for Solar Energy | Smart Journalism. Real Solutions. Miller-McCune.
> 
> The government could give tax credits to utilities who install solar panels and the utilities could pay the people who own the rooftops by supplying electricity at a reduced rate.
> 
> It's a simple and elegant solution which is probably why the idiots in DC haven't thought of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the USA we do not get to choose who sells us power, its all Federal and State regulations that give us power. Go ahead, try and buy your electricity from someone else.
> 
> So is it Constitutional to force me to pay higher electrical rates so that you can give money to private companies, literally forcing me to be customer of corporations, I must literally give my money to the rich person of governments choosing.
> 
> This simple idea results in me being broke, poor. I can honestly not afford to pay more for electricity, 300$ a month is too much.
> 
> I can not see how anyone can support Solar or Wind if you look at all the facts, the biggest fact being its too expensive for me to pay for.
> 
> Disruptive Business Models: SCE ProLogis Solar Deal - Who pays?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterdays announcement  that ProLogis had agreed to lease roofspace to SCE for solar arrays raises some interesting issues for the industry, most importantly, can private sector PPA based solar integrators be competitive with public utilities?
> 
> Arno Harris thinks so. He is the CEO of Recurrent Energy, so of course he has to!
> 
> The biggest question is whether the public (and the many public watchdog groups) will support the rate hikes that SCE will propose to finance this project. Should ratepayers finance SCE's entry into yet another profitable business for SCE? What does this say about using regulated/captive customer bases as a competitive advantage over private enterprise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could be paid to put a solar panel on your roof.  Your taxes would not rise and your electric bill would decrease.
> 
> All it would take is some out of the box thinking by the idiots in DC to allow tax credits for companies that will provide and install solar panels on the rooftops of private citizens.  The tax breaks could be used to fund the project and you get paid by getting a reduced electrical rate.
> 
> We already have the rooftops and we wouldn't have to revamp the entire power grid to do it.
Click to expand...


I have said it a thousand times in dozens of threads, Solar Energy does not work, its too expensive. Taxes are extremely high and adding the bill of Solar Energy to the tax burden is short sighted.

You realize that Solar needs a magical breakthrough and when and if that happens everything installed today is Junk. 

A solar panel on my roof, I guess that means no trees to shade my house and now I need an air conditioner and I also need to replace this garbage every 5-10 years as the panels go bad. I also need to use my precious water to clean them. 

What about industry, that is the problem, Solar and Green energy will never power industry.

Solar cannot even pump the water it needs to operate, that power must come from coal.

Solar energy can not even pump water in California, Solar cannot even supply energy to california's water projects let alone help, Solar will never be used to pump one drop of water. 

Yet we have Solar Power now and the higher cost I can not afford. I will be moving this summer out of California. It is too expensive.

This is a general statement to everyone promoting Green Energy, your idea is reality in Califonrnia, that and illegal immigration have now turned California into a third world. We have nice places surronded by the third world. Your Green Energy ideas are driving out the taxpayers and paying welfare to literal third world citizens, Tens of Millions of illegal aleins have invaded and now with the loss of jobs to California's and the Nation's Green Energy policy you dumb asses get to foot the bill, you get to pay for all the illegal aleins needs which includes expensive Green Energy.

Not only this, but your making corporations in China billions, you have saved Spain's companies from going bankrupt, you have made denmarks vestas rich as well as saved from bankruptsy.

And for what, so you can think you saved a drop of oil when in truth you used a lot more oil chasing solar panels across the globe.

Well Done.


----------



## mdn2000

Dawg said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!
> 
> 
> 
> Better question.  How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the best question of all. How many jobs will be created in America instead of sending our money to the middle east to build fortunes for Arab shieks, kings and terrorists? Go Solar. Keep the jobs and money in America!
Click to expand...


That is actually a poor question, First and foremost the worlds entire economy is built with oil. How many jobs can Solar build world wide, can you use Solar to build lets say the Solar Industry, as in can you use Solar to supply the energy needed to build Solar panels, the answer is no. Solar is an extremely expensive high school experiment. Maybe in the future there will be a breathrough but the cost is pure tyranny.

Sending our money to the Middle East, gee, how about if we just let the whole world develop as they see fit, we can stay huddled within our borders, hiding from those tyrants we escaped, and we can watch the kinder, gentler world do a better job than us.

Ha, Ha.

There is one thing I have learned living in the third world and traveling across the globe, we have flaws and corruption but when it comes to developing the world there is nobody better than us. 

Its a simple fact. 

We owe it to the world at this point to continue to grow, but not green energy, if it cannot supply energy to industry its useless energy. 

California has driven industry out of the state and raised electric rates to compensate the Utilities.

In the past, homes were powered by the tiny bit of electricity that leftover after industry used what they needed. I

So much to say, so much people never think of, cheap energy from the MIddle East, no cheaper oil in the world because its the easiest, cleaniest oil to refine, that is why Europe depends on Middle East oil, we could do without, Europe can not. That cheap oil is what we used to use to feed the world, to make the food, we as in the USA. Now because Liberal's hate people and population we took 25% of California's farms dependent on water out of production, water is the biggest bill for the California government, massive amounts of electricity are used to pump that water to farms that make food. We are also taking our Corn and turning that into energy, nice for the countries that depended on the USA's food. I think we supplied half the corn to the world, that is now gone because of our policies.

I think the policians realize that the world actually loves us so to change that they have made policies, rules, laws, and regulation that have decreased our exports of wheat and corn to the world. 

That is a pretty lousy, selfish, shortsighted, thing to do.

I see it as criminal. 

Yes, lets put Solar on our roofs and continue to shut down our industry and turn the USA into a third world.


----------



## mdn2000

TacomaJPP said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the board!
> 
> I was with you there until the last paragraph, when you ran off the rails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the welcome!
> 
> This seems to be a somewhat diverse forum which typically seems to generate a lot more debate than most forums I've been on.
> 
> So what exactly do you take issue with in this paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (B) Cut income and business taxes to a flat 10% and be done. Businessess would be encourage to stay in the US instead of heading to Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Panama, etc. With their extra revenue, money could be invested in forging ahead with R&D for future technology. But by no means will the US be successful in the long term by the subsidy system. We will fail. It's American ingenuity and spirit that will save our country, not bought-and-paid for DC politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Liberal's generally wish and expect the USA to fail. Without subsidies green energy falls flat, subsidies, free loans, no taxes, no EPA studies, free land to build on.

Never in our history have we seen an entire industry built by government, the green energy is that industy, 100% paid for with government dollars including all the research, billions given to Universities to make green energy. 

Nice way to go, 100% government, that is why it can not fail.


----------



## Old Rocks

Skull Pilot said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trillion dollar government solar projects are a boondoggle just waiting to happen.
> 
> Tell me why do we need to uglify acres of wilderness for huge solar farms when we already have acres of south and southwest facing rooftops?
> 
> Leasing America's Rooftops for Solar Energy | Smart Journalism. Real Solutions. Miller-McCune.
> 
> The government could give tax credits to utilities who install solar panels and the utilities could pay the people who own the rooftops by supplying electricity at a reduced rate.
> 
> It's a simple and elegant solution which is probably why the idiots in DC haven't thought of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the USA we do not get to choose who sells us power, its all Federal and State regulations that give us power. Go ahead, try and buy your electricity from someone else.
> 
> So is it Constitutional to force me to pay higher electrical rates so that you can give money to private companies, literally forcing me to be customer of corporations, I must literally give my money to the rich person of governments choosing.
> 
> This simple idea results in me being broke, poor. I can honestly not afford to pay more for electricity, 300$ a month is too much.
> 
> I can not see how anyone can support Solar or Wind if you look at all the facts, the biggest fact being its too expensive for me to pay for.
> 
> Disruptive Business Models: SCE ProLogis Solar Deal - Who pays?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterdays announcement  that ProLogis had agreed to lease roofspace to SCE for solar arrays raises some interesting issues for the industry, most importantly, can private sector PPA based solar integrators be competitive with public utilities?
> 
> Arno Harris thinks so. He is the CEO of Recurrent Energy, so of course he has to!
> 
> The biggest question is whether the public (and the many public watchdog groups) will support the rate hikes that SCE will propose to finance this project. Should ratepayers finance SCE's entry into yet another profitable business for SCE? What does this say about using regulated/captive customer bases as a competitive advantage over private enterprise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could be paid to put a solar panel on your roof.  Your taxes would not rise and your electric bill would decrease.
> 
> All it would take is some out of the box thinking by the idiots in DC to allow tax credits for companies that will provide and install solar panels on the rooftops of private citizens.  The tax breaks could be used to fund the project and you get paid by getting a reduced electrical rate.
> 
> We already have the rooftops and we wouldn't have to revamp the entire power grid to do it.
Click to expand...


Don't even have to go the the government for it. There are companies that will install solar on your roof, if it has correct orientation, and gaurentee no increases in your energy bill for a number of years. Some even give you the system after the contract is up. 

Much information on this site;

Solar (FAQs) Frequently Asked Questions: Solar Leasing, Installation and How Solar Works


----------



## Old Rocks

mdn2000 said:


> TacomaJPP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the board!
> 
> I was with you there until the last paragraph, when you ran off the rails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the welcome!
> 
> This seems to be a somewhat diverse forum which typically seems to generate a lot more debate than most forums I've been on.
> 
> So what exactly do you take issue with in this paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (B) Cut income and business taxes to a flat 10% and be done. Businessess would be encourage to stay in the US instead of heading to Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Panama, etc. With their extra revenue, money could be invested in forging ahead with R&D for future technology. But by no means will the US be successful in the long term by the subsidy system. We will fail. It's American ingenuity and spirit that will save our country, not bought-and-paid for DC politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberal's generally wish and expect the USA to fail. Without subsidies green energy falls flat, subsidies, free loans, no taxes, no EPA studies, free land to build on.
> 
> Never in our history have we seen an entire industry built by government, the green energy is that industy, 100% paid for with government dollars including all the research, billions given to Universities to make green energy.
> 
> Nice way to go, 100% government, that is why it can not fail.
Click to expand...


And never have we seen so many lying neocons making claims easily disproved.


----------



## Old Rocks

TacomaJPP said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the board!
> 
> I was with you there until the last paragraph, when you ran off the rails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the welcome!
> 
> This seems to be a somewhat diverse forum which typically seems to generate a lot more debate than most forums I've been on.
> 
> So what exactly do you take issue with in this paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (B) Cut income and business taxes to a flat 10% and be done. Businessess would be encourage to stay in the US instead of heading to Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Panama, etc. With their extra revenue, money could be invested in forging ahead with R&D for future technology. But by no means will the US be successful in the long term by the subsidy system. We will fail. It's American ingenuity and spirit that will save our country, not bought-and-paid for DC politicians.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


First, only small corperations pay the claimed business taxes. The big guys pay next to nothing. Second, 10% of a families income when they are only making $50,000 a year is a very large bite in their budget, considering that they still have SS and Medicare coming out of their wages. 10% of someones income that is making $1,000,000 a year is hardly noticable when it comes to style of living. 

I would like to point out that during Clinton's terms, we raised the income tax, and it affected the economy so adversly that they eliminated penelties on SS income for working so they could get more workers into the economy. Then Bush reduced the taxes on the rich, and started a war off of the books, and this worked so well that the number of jobs created in his terms did not even keep up with the citizens graduating from high school and college.

Penelties on companies offshoring, tariffs on the products coming from countries with few or no labor and environmental regulations, would go a long way towards getting jobs back into this nation.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TacomaJPP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the welcome!
> 
> This seems to be a somewhat diverse forum which typically seems to generate a lot more debate than most forums I've been on.
> 
> So what exactly do you take issue with in this paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal's generally wish and expect the USA to fail. Without subsidies green energy falls flat, subsidies, free loans, no taxes, no EPA studies, free land to build on.
> 
> Never in our history have we seen an entire industry built by government, the green energy is that industy, 100% paid for with government dollars including all the research, billions given to Universities to make green energy.
> 
> Nice way to go, 100% government, that is why it can not fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And never have we seen so many lying neocons making claims easily disproved.
Click to expand...


Old Crock, I am sorry to see your age destroy your mind, I bet you that when you were young cutting down trees you were sharp as an axe. 

So go ahead and disprove my claim, 100 % paid for by me, from all those research dollars you do not have to count to the waivers from environmental laws given to Green Energy, So easy to prove Old Crock yet you must ignore everyone of my posts and my threads. 

How many threads or posts have you ran from Old Crock, I say at least one hundred posts I made in direct response to Old Crock's, and many times I use Old Crock's own links and sources, to prove Old Crock is wrong, so how many times must Old Crock run, to make it easy, how many times have you had nothing to say when I point out Old Crock's links do not even support Old Crock's claims, I bet I have done that at least a dozen times. 

I like the time Old Crock said that you could make steel without oil or gas and then Old Crock posted a link, to an electric furnace, steel plant, Old Crock even made Old Crock the expert by stating Old Crock worked in the steel industry, so Old Crock posts a link to an Electric Arc blast furnace for steel that used Natural Gas and tried to make the claim Gas and Oil are not needed to make electricity. 

That was great Old Crock,

Or how about the time Old Crock used Bloomquist as an expert on Geothermal energy and five posts later when I quoted Bloomquist Old Crock said Bloomquist was an idiot, a hack, I had to point out to Old Crock that Old Crock just stated the opposite.

Go ahead Old Crock, post something real good to show I am wrong, go ahead, I dare you to, I will even wait, I am in a bad mood and would enjoy showing the stupidity of Green Energy and all those who support it.


----------



## Douger

It's easy when countries don't have to feed a blood ( and oil) thirsty monster.

Global Arab Network | Germany Moving Towards 100 % Renewable Energy | Energy

Renewable energy in Norway &mdash; Nordic Energy Solutions

Costa Rica Is 99% Powered By Renewable Energy >> MetaEfficient Review

Wind and solar power - Renewable energy in New Zealand - Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand


----------



## mdn2000

Douger said:


> It's easy when countries don't have to feed a blood ( and oil) thirsty monster.
> 
> Global Arab Network | Germany Moving Towards 100 % Renewable Energy | Energy
> 
> Renewable energy in Norway &mdash; Nordic Energy Solutions
> 
> Costa Rica Is 99% Powered By Renewable Energy >> MetaEfficient Review
> 
> Wind and solar power - Renewable energy in New Zealand - Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand



Your right there, it is easy for a country when they get to feed off the USA as well as having the added luxury of being tiny and insignificant. Germany, I doubt we will ever 
see Germany producing the amount of food that the USA produces, you cannot power a farm with wind. Germany does not have to protect itself, does not provide for its own defense, another big burden gone.

Costa Rica, that is Hydro Electric dams, think they used a Wind Mill to pump and pour all that concrete into the dam or did they use oil? 

Denmark, home of the Bankrupt Vesta Wind Turbine Manufacturer, a complete failure until California took my tax money and gave it to a Corporation in Denmark, must be nice to steal from me to give to foriegners. 

While, you get to look at California's deficit and pay the price for all that money wasted on Wind Mills and Solar panels. The Obama administration is bailing out California's failed Green energy policy and Spain's.

Thats right our tax money now goes to Spain so that they do not go under because of Green Energy. 

If we are a global economy, all interconnected, and Europe began subsidizing Green Energy before the Housing Bubble, what actually caused the World's economoy to collapse, Europes entire energy policy or less than 10% of the housing market in the USA.


----------



## Old Rocks

Ah poor baby, mdn got his ass handed to him again.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> Ah poor baby, mdn got his ass handed to him again.



Not by you or anyone in this thread, are you still sore Old Crock, I did point out that Old Crock is a hypocrite, imagine, Old Crock supports Hydro Fracking for Green Energy but opposes Hydro Fracking for Fossil Energy. 

So I point out, using Old Crock's own posts and links how Old Crock is a hypocrite and that is called getting my "Ass-handed" to me. 

Hardly Old Crock, Old Crock, your attacking me personally, you are not addressing the facts in my posts, that gives me great pleasure.

Still, you win, I get my ass handed to me by paying higher taxes, by paying tariffs, by paying California Redemtion Values, by paying extremely high electric bills. 

Not only that, we have no energy to create food which is now starving people across the World.

Nice energy policy. Maybe if people like Old Crock spent less time name calling and more time listening to facts not so many people would be facing famine across the World.

Yet that is the Policy of Old Crock and the Green Anarchist, a World without people, imagine how great that would be, right Old Crock.


----------



## Ernie S.

konradv said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?
> 
> My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!
> 
> 
> 
> Better question.  How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil.  It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.
Click to expand...

If we can just figure out how to make power from moon light, darkness and clouds, we;ll be fine.
IIRC, an oil fired generating plant uses 70 to 80% of the fuel used at peak power while running in stand-by mode. It takes days, not hours to get an idle plant on line.


----------



## mdn2000

Ernie S. said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better question.  How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil.  It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we can just figure out how to make power from moon light, darkness and clouds, we;ll be fine.
> IIRC, an oil fired generating plant uses 70 to 80% of the fuel used at peak power while running in stand-by mode. It takes days, not hours to get an idle plant on line.
Click to expand...


The systems this thread is based on can create electricity from the Moon, darkness and clouds, these Solar Plants are powered by Natural Gas, thats right, these are natural gas powered solar plants which resolved the problem of not producing consistent reliable power. 

NO JOKE, these are Natural Gas Power Plants, they literally produce 80% of their power with Natural Gas. Funny, even the Natural Gas pipeline has a back-up system that is ran with Diesel power. 

Solar, not at all, Natural Gas Power Plants.


----------



## Synthaholic

Here is a good story that I didn't want to get lost in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/155938-energy-independence-in-92-square-miles.html#post3339601


----------



## Old Rocks

Now we are on the verge of thin film photovoltaics that have high efficiences. These could be place on commercial and industrial roofs with no additional loading. That would increase the amount of power available during the hours in which the power is most needed. Wind, geothermal, and thermal solar could provide power for the dark hours. 

The solutions and technologies are out there. The problem is that, unlike fossil fuel, they can be made by a whole bunch of small and medium sized players. That just does not sit well with the present powers.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> Now we are on the verge of thin film photovoltaics that have high efficiences. These could be place on commercial and industrial roofs with no additional loading. That would increase the amount of power available during the hours in which the power is most needed. Wind, geothermal, and thermal solar could provide power for the dark hours.
> 
> The solutions and technologies are out there. The problem is that, unlike fossil fuel, they can be made by a whole bunch of small and medium sized players. That just does not sit well with the present powers.



Another bullshit lie from the Hypocrite. 

Georthermal is the most expensive, most polluting of all sources of power because the corrosive nature of Brine destroys the equipment.

Solar is Natural Gas Powered hence it is no longer Solar.

Wind is not built by a small player, its built by bankrupt companies that are propped up by the government stealing my tax dollars.

General Electric is a small player?

Dow Corning is a small player?

Chevron and the Oil Companies provide raw materials to build these massive Green Energy Plants.

Every Green Energy plant now built is physically the largest in size, its an industry thats physical size is 1000's larger than fossil fuel plants that produce a 1000x's more energy

Now Old Crock knows this, as I pointed out using Old Crock's own posts, Old Crock is a Hypocrite.

This threads Solar Plants we are discussing are all natural gas power plants with solar panels attached, Natural gas is not Solar.

Welcome to the big scam of big business.

If you beleive in Green Energy you know absolutely nothing about the topic.

Rooftop solar, forcing customers who have no choice to pay a private corporation a forced price for expensive energy.

Assholes.


----------



## mdn2000

Ausra, this must be a great Solar Company, Al Gore and Bill Clinton passed laws and authorized and financed the studies promoting the global warming fraud, as well as gave grants, tax subsidies, and free research to these Solar Companies. 

And now we find out its because Al Gore is invested in Green Technology, I thought Dick Cheney used his position to advance Halliburton, it seems when Democrats accuse Republicans, its only because they are guilty of the crime themselves.

Al Gore invested in the fraud, AUSRA

Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria



> For years, NewsBusters has reported on Al Gore's financial interests in advancing global warming hysteria around the world.
> 
> On March 1, while speaking at the TED Conference in Monterey, California, the Nobel Laureate admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "sub-prime carbon assets" like "tar sands" and "shale oil."
> 
> This occurred as pictures of such products appeared on the screen with names of the companies involved (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00, h/t NBer Sick-and-Tired):
> 
> Story Continues Below Ad &#8595; There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I&#8217;ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
> 
> As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).
> 
> As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.
> 
> And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in.


----------



## mah127

Great thread!


----------



## Synthaholic

mdn2000 said:


> Ausra, this must be a great Solar Company, Al Gore and Bill Clinton passed laws and authorized and financed the studies promoting the global warming fraud, as well as gave grants, tax subsidies, and free research to these Solar Companies.
> 
> And now we find out its because Al Gore is invested in Green Technology, I thought Dick Cheney used his position to advance Halliburton, it seems when Democrats accuse Republicans, its only because they are guilty of the crime themselves.
> 
> Al Gore invested in the fraud, AUSRA
> 
> Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For years, NewsBusters has reported on Al Gore's financial interests in advancing global warming hysteria around the world.
> 
> On March 1, while speaking at the TED Conference in Monterey, California, the Nobel Laureate admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "sub-prime carbon assets" like "tar sands" and "shale oil."
> 
> This occurred as pictures of such products appeared on the screen with names of the companies involved (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00, h/t NBer Sick-and-Tired):
> 
> Story Continues Below Ad &#8595; There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so Ill have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
> 
> As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).
> 
> As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.
> 
> And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in.
Click to expand...

 

*  What makes Ausra a fraud?

*  Why is it bad for Gore to recommend technology that he believes in so much that he has risked his own money to invest in?


----------



## mdn2000

Synthaholic said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ausra, this must be a great Solar Company, Al Gore and Bill Clinton passed laws and authorized and financed the studies promoting the global warming fraud, as well as gave grants, tax subsidies, and free research to these Solar Companies.
> 
> And now we find out its because Al Gore is invested in Green Technology, I thought Dick Cheney used his position to advance Halliburton, it seems when Democrats accuse Republicans, its only because they are guilty of the crime themselves.
> 
> Al Gore invested in the fraud, AUSRA
> 
> Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For years, NewsBusters has reported on Al Gore's financial interests in advancing global warming hysteria around the world.
> 
> On March 1, while speaking at the TED Conference in Monterey, California, the Nobel Laureate admitted to having "a stake" in a number of green "investments" that he recommended attendees put money in rather than "sub-prime carbon assets" like "tar sands" and "shale oil."
> 
> This occurred as pictures of such products appeared on the screen with names of the companies involved (video available here, relevant section begins at minute 15:00, h/t NBer Sick-and-Tired):
> 
> Story Continues Below Ad &#8595; There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so Ill have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
> 
> As Gore spoke these words, pictures of electric cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power).
> 
> As such, like an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients, Al Gore was actively recommending people put money in companies he already has a financial stake in.
> 
> And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *  What makes Ausra a fraud?
> 
> *  Why is it bad for Gore to recommend technology that he believes in so much that he has risked his own money to invest in?
Click to expand...


Have you followed my posts on Ausra in response to what you have been posting, you posted the 92 square miles to power the country with Ausra's solar, while your article is over three years old, since then the people who ran the company failed to prove the concept works and thus just about went bankrupt until Areva of France bought the company, in which according to European law and the Carbon Credits trading scheme, think Derivatives, Areva needed a Solar company for Carbon Credits, funny, so they buy a failed US Company. Of course now Obama is dumping trillions of dollars into every bank in the world that lends to Solar Companies, Obama is giving grants to everyone from universities to backyard activitist who research or promote Solar. Obama is giving trillions to banks overseas that have lost hundreds of billions of dollars on Solar.

Why is bad for Al Gore as Vice President to give billions to promote global warming, why is it bad for Al Gore as Vice President to change the rules and regulations in government to make it artificially expensive to produce electricity from Coal, Natural Gas, or Nuclear so that Solar does not seem so expensive. why is it wrong for the Vice President of the United States of America to foster hysteria over global warming and build the industry that will profit from his own actions.

Honestly, you do not see a conflict of interest.

You should read the EPRI studies funded by the Clinton/Gore administration, a great start to understanding the fraud.


----------



## Synthaholic

mdn2000 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ausra, this must be a great Solar Company, Al Gore and Bill Clinton passed laws and authorized and financed the studies promoting the global warming fraud, as well as gave grants, tax subsidies, and free research to these Solar Companies.
> 
> And now we find out its because Al Gore is invested in Green Technology, I thought Dick Cheney used his position to advance Halliburton, it seems when Democrats accuse Republicans, its only because they are guilty of the crime themselves.
> 
> Al Gore invested in the fraud, AUSRA
> 
> Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *  What makes Ausra a fraud?
> 
> *  Why is it bad for Gore to recommend technology that he believes in so much that he has risked his own money to invest in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you followed my posts on Ausra in response to what you have been posting, you posted the 92 square miles to power the country with Ausra's solar, while your article is over three years old, since then the people who ran the company failed to prove the concept works and thus just about went bankrupt until Areva of France bought the company, in which according to European law and the Carbon Credits trading scheme, think Derivatives, Areva needed a Solar company for Carbon Credits, funny, so they buy a failed US Company. Of course now Obama is dumping trillions of dollars into every bank in the world that lends to Solar Companies, Obama is giving grants to everyone from universities to backyard activitist who research or promote Solar. Obama is giving trillions to banks overseas that have lost hundreds of billions of dollars on Solar.
> 
> Why is bad for Al Gore as Vice President to give billions to promote global warming, why is it bad for Al Gore as Vice President to change the rules and regulations in government to make it artificially expensive to produce electricity from Coal, Natural Gas, or Nuclear so that Solar does not seem so expensive. why is it wrong for the Vice President of the United States of America to foster hysteria over global warming and build the industry that will profit from his own actions.
> 
> Honestly, you do not see a conflict of interest.
> 
> You should read the EPRI studies funded by the Clinton/Gore administration, a great start to understanding the fraud.
Click to expand...

Al Gore hasn't been VP since Jan., 2001.

Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give any money to anybody.

I will look into Ausra when I have time.  I do not believe the technology does not work, as you claim.  Vinod Khosla doesn't invest $25 million in companies he hasn't vetted.


----------



## mdn2000

Synthaholic said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *  What makes Ausra a fraud?
> 
> *  Why is it bad for Gore to recommend technology that he believes in so much that he has risked his own money to invest in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my posts on Ausra in response to what you have been posting, you posted the 92 square miles to power the country with Ausra's solar, while your article is over three years old, since then the people who ran the company failed to prove the concept works and thus just about went bankrupt until Areva of France bought the company, in which according to European law and the Carbon Credits trading scheme, think Derivatives, Areva needed a Solar company for Carbon Credits, funny, so they buy a failed US Company. Of course now Obama is dumping trillions of dollars into every bank in the world that lends to Solar Companies, Obama is giving grants to everyone from universities to backyard activitist who research or promote Solar. Obama is giving trillions to banks overseas that have lost hundreds of billions of dollars on Solar.
> 
> Why is bad for Al Gore as Vice President to give billions to promote global warming, why is it bad for Al Gore as Vice President to change the rules and regulations in government to make it artificially expensive to produce electricity from Coal, Natural Gas, or Nuclear so that Solar does not seem so expensive. why is it wrong for the Vice President of the United States of America to foster hysteria over global warming and build the industry that will profit from his own actions.
> 
> Honestly, you do not see a conflict of interest.
> 
> You should read the EPRI studies funded by the Clinton/Gore administration, a great start to understanding the fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Al Gore hasn't been VP since Jan., 2001.
> 
> Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give any money to anybody.
> 
> I will look into Ausra when I have time.  I do not believe the technology does not work, as you claim.  Vinod Khosla doesn't invest $25 million in companies he hasn't vetted.
Click to expand...


Ausra, you will look in to it, I made three posts with links and quotes concerning Altura. Just quit covering the same topic in two different threads, you have another thread on Altura, I posted everything there.

Let me summarize for you, Altura since your article can not get any loans hence they have no business. What business they did have the sold to First Solar, First Solar since went bankrupt (I need to follow up to be more accurate). Clear of bad assets by selling the asset to now Bankrupt First Solar, laws and regulations in the European Union have proved favorable for Altura. Seems they passed a bunch laws, rules, and regulations and now thus have Carbon Trading to offset pollution, not that that is possible. So Areva of France, a huge corporation bought Altura. As far as I know, Altura never produced electricity in the USA. The 92 square miles of Solar to power the entire USA, four years later and Altura is definately not the same company or person that made that claim. Is it fraud, of course it is, trying to get financing, maybe go public and sell stocks, so yes, making false claims is fraud. If the claim was true, at the very least, California would of financed the project.

It is fraud, a lie, call it what you want. Read your other thread. I have some stuff posted there and more if you care to attempt to claim there is truth to a claim made four years ago by a company that does not exist today. 

So far we have a Solar project that was just all talk and eight other solar projects being powered by natural gas, if that is not Clean and Green fraud, there is no such thing as fraud.


----------



## mdn2000

Synthaholic said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *  What makes Ausra a fraud?
> 
> *  Why is it bad for Gore to recommend technology that he believes in so much that he has risked his own money to invest in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my posts on Ausra in response to what you have been posting, you posted the 92 square miles to power the country with Ausra's solar, while your article is over three years old, since then the people who ran the company failed to prove the concept works and thus just about went bankrupt until Areva of France bought the company, in which according to European law and the Carbon Credits trading scheme, think Derivatives, Areva needed a Solar company for Carbon Credits, funny, so they buy a failed US Company. Of course now Obama is dumping trillions of dollars into every bank in the world that lends to Solar Companies, Obama is giving grants to everyone from universities to backyard activitist who research or promote Solar. Obama is giving trillions to banks overseas that have lost hundreds of billions of dollars on Solar.
> 
> Why is bad for Al Gore as Vice President to give billions to promote global warming, why is it bad for Al Gore as Vice President to change the rules and regulations in government to make it artificially expensive to produce electricity from Coal, Natural Gas, or Nuclear so that Solar does not seem so expensive. why is it wrong for the Vice President of the United States of America to foster hysteria over global warming and build the industry that will profit from his own actions.
> 
> Honestly, you do not see a conflict of interest.
> 
> You should read the EPRI studies funded by the Clinton/Gore administration, a great start to understanding the fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Al Gore hasn't been VP since Jan., 2001.
> 
> Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give any money to anybody.
> 
> I will look into Ausra when I have time.  I do not believe the technology does not work, as you claim.  Vinod Khosla doesn't invest $25 million in companies he hasn't vetted.
Click to expand...


Al Gore has not been in office since 2001, so what, I made the point that while in office Al Gore passed laws, rules, regulations, authorized funds, studies, in which Al Gore is now directly profiting from. 

Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give money to anybody, I wonder if you ever stated Dick Cheney gave a no bid contract to Halliburton. I could check your posts but I think it only save our last five hundred posts. Anyhow, you know if you did or not, just a thought, not a accusation. 

Do you know that the Vice President votes in the Senate. That is one way money is spent. You also know that the Vice President has influence in Government as well. Correct. Would you like a list of what Al Gore states he did, it can be found on Al Gore's website. 

If you think Al Gore did nothing while in office or that is was so long ago its irrelevant than you are a bit naive or maybe you just do not know.


----------



## Old Rocks

mdn2000 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my posts on Ausra in response to what you have been posting, you posted the 92 square miles to power the country with Ausra's solar, while your article is over three years old, since then the people who ran the company failed to prove the concept works and thus just about went bankrupt until Areva of France bought the company, in which according to European law and the Carbon Credits trading scheme, think Derivatives, Areva needed a Solar company for Carbon Credits, funny, so they buy a failed US Company. Of course now Obama is dumping trillions of dollars into every bank in the world that lends to Solar Companies, Obama is giving grants to everyone from universities to backyard activitist who research or promote Solar. Obama is giving trillions to banks overseas that have lost hundreds of billions of dollars on Solar.
> 
> Why is bad for Al Gore as Vice President to give billions to promote global warming, why is it bad for Al Gore as Vice President to change the rules and regulations in government to make it artificially expensive to produce electricity from Coal, Natural Gas, or Nuclear so that Solar does not seem so expensive. why is it wrong for the Vice President of the United States of America to foster hysteria over global warming and build the industry that will profit from his own actions.
> 
> Honestly, you do not see a conflict of interest.
> 
> You should read the EPRI studies funded by the Clinton/Gore administration, a great start to understanding the fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> Al Gore hasn't been VP since Jan., 2001.
> 
> Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give any money to anybody.
> 
> I will look into Ausra when I have time.  I do not believe the technology does not work, as you claim.  Vinod Khosla doesn't invest $25 million in companies he hasn't vetted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Al Gore has not been in office since 2001, so what, I made the point that while in office Al Gore passed laws, rules, regulations, authorized funds, studies, in which Al Gore is now directly profiting from.
> 
> Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give money to anybody, I wonder if you ever stated Dick Cheney gave a no bid contract to Halliburton. I could check your posts but I think it only save our last five hundred posts. Anyhow, you know if you did or not, just a thought, not a accusation.
> 
> Do you know that the Vice President votes in the Senate. That is one way money is spent. You also know that the Vice President has influence in Government as well. Correct. Would you like a list of what Al Gore states he did, it can be found on Al Gore's website.
> 
> If you think Al Gore did nothing while in office or that is was so long ago its irrelevant than you are a bit naive or maybe you just do not know.
Click to expand...


dumb ass. The Vice-President votes in the Senate only in the case of a tie.

Vice President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under the Constitution, the Vice President is President of the United States Senate.[4] In that capacity, he is only allowed to vote in the Senate when necessary to break a tied vote. While the Senate has added supermajority rules that have diminished this Constitutional power, in important circumstances the Vice President retains the ability to affect legislation (e.g. the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005).[4][5][6] Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President presides over the joint session of Congress when it convenes to count the vote of the Electoral College.[2]


----------



## rdean

To the right wing, the only "reliable" source of power are "campfires".


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al Gore hasn't been VP since Jan., 2001.
> 
> Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give any money to anybody.
> 
> I will look into Ausra when I have time.  I do not believe the technology does not work, as you claim.  Vinod Khosla doesn't invest $25 million in companies he hasn't vetted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al Gore has not been in office since 2001, so what, I made the point that while in office Al Gore passed laws, rules, regulations, authorized funds, studies, in which Al Gore is now directly profiting from.
> 
> Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give money to anybody, I wonder if you ever stated Dick Cheney gave a no bid contract to Halliburton. I could check your posts but I think it only save our last five hundred posts. Anyhow, you know if you did or not, just a thought, not a accusation.
> 
> Do you know that the Vice President votes in the Senate. That is one way money is spent. You also know that the Vice President has influence in Government as well. Correct. Would you like a list of what Al Gore states he did, it can be found on Al Gore's website.
> 
> If you think Al Gore did nothing while in office or that is was so long ago its irrelevant than you are a bit naive or maybe you just do not know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dumb ass. The Vice-President votes in the Senate only in the case of a tie.
> 
> Vice President of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Under the Constitution, the Vice President is President of the United States Senate.[4] In that capacity, he is only allowed to vote in the Senate when necessary to break a tied vote. While the Senate has added supermajority rules that have diminished this Constitutional power, in important circumstances the Vice President retains the ability to affect legislation (e.g. the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005).[4][5][6] Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President presides over the joint session of Congress when it convenes to count the vote of the Electoral College.[2]
Click to expand...


Is that the best you got Hypocrite, Yes or No, does the Vice President ever vote as a member of the Senate. The answer is yes, the Vice President does vote, as a member of the Senate. If you wish to post the details go right ahead, if you wish could you please include the vote to make ETHANOL, Al Gore as Vice President made the vote in favor of turning food into fuel which is the exact reason so many people across the world are starving. 

Imagine Old Crock, as you stated, food production is down across the entire World, according to Old Crock, and on top of that, 50% of the USA's corn crop was always sold as food to the World, now, because of Al Gore's deciding vote as Vice President in the Senate, Corn is now mandated by Al Gore to be turned into Ethanol, not food.

So Al Gore as Vice President did vote in the Senate, Dumb Ass Hypocrite, why does a hypocrite ignore his own posts, simple, Old Crock is also a Liar on top of being a Hypocrite.


----------



## Trajan

all that glitters, is not gold. 


    * JANUARY 18, 2011

Solar Power Eclipse
A case study in the failure of green energy subsidies.

Not long ago, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick was calling Evergreen Solar a "symbol" of his state's economic future. Symbolism would appear to be overrated.

Evergreen announced last week that it is shutting its Massachusetts plant and will lay off 800 workers. That's the same plant Mr. Patrick had state taxpayers fund in 2007 to the tune of $58 million in grants, loans and land and tax incentives&#8212;one of the largest investments in a private company in Bay State history. Remind us not to let the Governor pick our stock portfolio.

The solar company started in 1994 and advertises a "string ribbon" technology that reduces the amount of silicon used in solar panels. Evergreen rode the green energy political bubble through a 2000 IPO, and through news in 2007 that it would build, with state aid, a flagship plant in Devens, Massachusetts.

A look at the company's finances shows it has lost a cumulative $685 million. The majority of this red ink was on the books prior to Mr. Patrick promising state aid. The company has produced little good news since, including warnings from Nasdaq that it could be delisted, an unproductive debt restructuring, and a string of money-losing quarters. None of this fazed Mr. Patrick, who touted Evergreen as a cornerstone of his strategy to turn Massachusetts into a hub of green energy innovation. 

snip-

But Evergreen has also been subsidized in the multiple ways that federal and state governments favor solar power. Maybe the problem is Evergreen's business model, or perhaps its decision to locate a plant in a high-cost, union-labor state. Evergreen has long been aware of China's solar manufacturing advantage, waiting until it received the $58 million from Massachusetts to announce it would outsource jobs to a plant it continues to operate in China.

Bay State taxpayers are now stuck with the losses. Mr. Patrick says he intends to claw back some of that $58 million, but Evergreen says it doesn't owe more than $4 million. Taxpayers will also be thrilled to know the state is so worried about getting a new tenant for the manufacturing site that it may let Evergreen keep its sweetheart $1-a-year lease&#8212;allowing the company to sublet it at a profit. 

more at-

Review & Outlook: Solar Power Eclipse - WSJ.com


----------



## Synthaholic

mdn2000 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my posts on Ausra in response to what you have been posting, you posted the 92 square miles to power the country with Ausra's solar, while your article is over three years old, since then the people who ran the company failed to prove the concept works and thus just about went bankrupt until Areva of France bought the company, in which according to European law and the Carbon Credits trading scheme, think Derivatives, Areva needed a Solar company for Carbon Credits, funny, so they buy a failed US Company. Of course now Obama is dumping trillions of dollars into every bank in the world that lends to Solar Companies, Obama is giving grants to everyone from universities to backyard activitist who research or promote Solar. Obama is giving trillions to banks overseas that have lost hundreds of billions of dollars on Solar.
> 
> Why is bad for Al Gore as Vice President to give billions to promote global warming, why is it bad for Al Gore as Vice President to change the rules and regulations in government to make it artificially expensive to produce electricity from Coal, Natural Gas, or Nuclear so that Solar does not seem so expensive. why is it wrong for the Vice President of the United States of America to foster hysteria over global warming and build the industry that will profit from his own actions.
> 
> Honestly, you do not see a conflict of interest.
> 
> You should read the EPRI studies funded by the Clinton/Gore administration, a great start to understanding the fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> Al Gore hasn't been VP since Jan., 2001.
> 
> Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give any money to anybody.
> 
> I will look into Ausra when I have time. I do not believe the technology does not work, as you claim. Vinod Khosla doesn't invest $25 million in companies he hasn't vetted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ausra, you will look in to it, I made three posts with links and quotes concerning *Altura*. Just quit covering the same topic in two different threads, you have another thread on *Altura*, I posted everything there.
> 
> Let me summarize for you, *Altura* since your article can not get any loans hence they have no business. What business they did have the sold to First Solar, First Solar since went bankrupt (I need to follow up to be more accurate). Clear of bad assets by selling the asset to now Bankrupt First Solar, laws and regulations in the European Union have proved favorable for *Altura*. Seems they passed a bunch laws, rules, and regulations and now thus have Carbon Trading to offset pollution, not that that is possible. So Areva of France, a huge corporation bought *Altura*. As far as I know, *Altura* never produced electricity in the USA. The 92 square miles of Solar to power the entire USA, four years later and *Altura* is definately not the same company or person that made that claim. Is it fraud, of course it is, trying to get financing, maybe go public and sell stocks, so yes, making false claims is fraud. If the claim was true, at the very least, California would of financed the project.
> 
> It is fraud, a lie, call it what you want. Read your other thread. I have some stuff posted there and more if you care to attempt to claim there is truth to a claim made four years ago by a company that does not exist today.
> 
> So far we have a Solar project that was just all talk and eight other solar projects being powered by natural gas, if that is not Clean and Green fraud, there is no such thing as fraud.
Click to expand...

 
OK, who the hell is Altura?  This is the first post that you've mentioned them.

You're a hard guy to follow.


----------



## mdn2000

More from Gore.

Funny, I thought Democrats were the ones protecting us, now its proven they are liars and hypocrites and the only argument we get is that the Vice President is powerless, yet the Vice President does vote in the Senate. The Vice President can give nobody funds, yet we here that Cheney gave contracts to Halliburton, yet Vice Presidents do not have the power. 

I guess that is just because everyone knows Republicans are bad and Democrats are saints.

Al Gore's green investments prompt conflict of interest row | World news | The Guardian



> The accusation that Gore is trapped in a conflict of interest has been raised periodically over the past few years. It is a barb popular among climate change sceptics and rightwing bloggers, as well as Republican politicians. Marsha Blackburn, a congressional representative from Gore's home state of Tennessee, tackled him over the issue in April during a subcommittee debate in Congress on the Obama administration's proposed cap-in-trade system for curbing emissions.
> 
> She referred to Gore's partnership of Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, a Californian venture capital firm that has put about $1bn into about 40 companies that will be bidding for contracts under the new system. "Is the legislation we are discussing here today something you are going to benefit personally from?" she asked.
> 
> Gore, audibly riled, replied that every penny he made from his investments was put back into his non-profit foundation to spread knowledge about the climate challenge. "If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me," he said, adding: "Do you think there's something wrong with being active in business in this country? I am proud of it."
> 
> One of Gore's partners at Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers is John Doerr, who advises Barack Obama on dealing with the economic downturn.
> 
> Gore is also a founder of Generation Investment Management, based in London, which has substantial interests in green technology


----------



## Synthaholic

mdn2000 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you followed my posts on Ausra in response to what you have been posting, you posted the 92 square miles to power the country with Ausra's solar, while your article is over three years old, since then the people who ran the company failed to prove the concept works and thus just about went bankrupt until Areva of France bought the company, in which according to European law and the Carbon Credits trading scheme, think Derivatives, Areva needed a Solar company for Carbon Credits, funny, so they buy a failed US Company. Of course now Obama is dumping trillions of dollars into every bank in the world that lends to Solar Companies, Obama is giving grants to everyone from universities to backyard activitist who research or promote Solar. Obama is giving trillions to banks overseas that have lost hundreds of billions of dollars on Solar.
> 
> Why is bad for Al Gore as Vice President to give billions to promote global warming, why is it bad for Al Gore as Vice President to change the rules and regulations in government to make it artificially expensive to produce electricity from Coal, Natural Gas, or Nuclear so that Solar does not seem so expensive. why is it wrong for the Vice President of the United States of America to foster hysteria over global warming and build the industry that will profit from his own actions.
> 
> Honestly, you do not see a conflict of interest.
> 
> You should read the EPRI studies funded by the Clinton/Gore administration, a great start to understanding the fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> Al Gore hasn't been VP since Jan., 2001.
> 
> Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give any money to anybody.
> 
> I will look into Ausra when I have time. I do not believe the technology does not work, as you claim. Vinod Khosla doesn't invest $25 million in companies he hasn't vetted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Al Gore has not been in office since 2001, so what, I made the point that while in office Al Gore passed laws, rules, regulations, authorized funds, studies, in which Al Gore is now directly profiting from.
> 
> Vice-Presidents do not have the power to give money to anybody, I wonder if you ever stated Dick Cheney gave a no bid contract to Halliburton. I could check your posts but I think it only save our last five hundred posts. Anyhow, you know if you did or not, just a thought, not a accusation.
> 
> Do you know that the Vice President votes in the Senate. That is one way money is spent. You also know that the Vice President has influence in Government as well. Correct. Would you like a list of what Al Gore states he did, it can be found on Al Gore's website.
> 
> If you think Al Gore did nothing while in office or that is was so long ago its irrelevant than you are a bit naive or maybe you just do not know.
Click to expand...

 
You should compose shorter posts, because the more you talk, the more bullshit is apparent.

You said that Gore, as Vice President, gave billions.  VPs can't allocate any money.  *So that's BS#1*.

You said *"while in office Al Gore passed laws, rules, regulations, authorized funds, studies, in which Al Gore is now directly profiting from."  *VPs do not pass laws or rules or regulations, and they cannot authorize funds.  Only Congress can do that.  *That's BS#2*.

Dick Cheney did not allocate taxpayer money to Halliburton because, again, VPs cannot do that.  But he did influence the Bush administration to award no-bid contracts to Halliburton.  Can you show where Gore awarded no-bid contracts to any Green companies?  No.  *That's BS#3*.

As pointed out already, VPs do not vote in the Senate unless there is a tie.  *That's BS#4*.

I eagerly await #5-8.


----------



## mdn2000

Al Gore as Vice President is the President of the Senate, the President of the Senate votes to break ties. Gee, now you take the comment I make to try and make it look like I was wrong, that is a very weak argument at best. I can not prove all my accusations but the facts are there that support everything I stated. Does the Vice President vote in the Senate, the answer is yes, it took Old Crock to point out to you that is only during a tie, which I of course knew, but its easier to test someone's knowledge if I am a bit vague, I admit this from time to time, I bait people to draw them into a conversation so that I can make a point when I see someone is clearly wrong.

You think I posted a simple comment without no thougth, again you are extremely naive, I am setting you up, getting you to post more and more, thus, I have something to work with other than your naive cut and paste. 

Al Gore voted many times in the Senate. That is not bullshit, you can add more detail to my statement and add only during a tie, that does not discredit my statement that the Vice President votes in the Senate.

But, its easier to focus on bullshit, than facts.

Al Gore as Vice President voted in favor of Ethanol. Shall I go into all the laws, rules, and regulation now implemented and how this one vote of Al Gore transferred funds. So yes, VP's can allocate funds as part of the Senate.

Al Gore's Accomplishments (Detailed)- GSC



> A Strong Supporter of Ethanol. As Vice President, and as a Member of Congress, Al Gore has been a strong supporter of ethanol. In 1994, he cast the tie-breaking vote to defeat legislation that would have prohibited the EPA from implementing its rule mandating the use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline. In addition, Al Gore cosponsored Senate legislation to promote and encourage the development of ethanol



So there it is, in one deciding vote, Al Gore as President of the Senate, passed a bill that contained rules, regulations, laws, and allocated funds to mandate that Corn be turned into Ethanol.

Al Gore, as Vice President, voted in the Senate, casting the deciding vote taking 15% of the World's corn/food supply off the World Market. In a world of Starvation and Famine, this act of Al Gore's is

Yea, I should keep things short, otherwise you will continue to ignore where I showed the failure of Asura and your 92 sq. mile Natural Gas Powered Solar fantasy.

Al Gore - Conservapedia



> Cast tie breaking vote to increase taxes on Social Security
> 
> In 1993 President Clinton sought to increase taxes on Social Security benefits of the elderly and disabled.[11] The final version of the bill passed by the Democratically controlled Congress increased taxes on beneficiaries from the first 50% to 85%[12] of benefits (or "annuity payments" as they were originally called). Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding tie-breaker vote in the Senate to make the tax increase law. The Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security benefits imposed a 70% income tax rate on a retired couple making as little as $22,000 per year



Wow, to votes, both that cost taxpayers more money, how is that possible, Al Gore has no power as Vice President, yet Al Gore did vote in the Senate, four times, twice I have shown that Al Gore's vote was the critical vote, and each time it cost us more money. 

So as you can see, three things I stated are all related to the Vice President's votes in the Senate, funny how you take that one statement and divide it into three seperate cases of Bullshit. I never said Al Gore was a voting member of the Senate as Vice President, to state that Al Gore votes in the Senate if a intentionally vague statement. 

It showed to me your willing to claim something as bullshit when in fact it is the truth. 

Your last post calling my comment Bullshit is Bullshit. 

Dick Cheney as Vice President is part of the Bush Administration, the second most powerful man in the Administration. It is pure bullshit that your stating that Dick Cheney influenced the administration as if the Vice President is not part of the administration, how does it feel to have to distort the truth to save just a little face.

Dick Cheney is the Bush Administration, not an outsider, your stating that it was the Bush Adminstration that awarded the contract, not Cheney,  the administration is Dick Cheney. And you state I am full of Bullshit. 

How about thinking a bit, seriously, I do not wish to tear your posts apart for fun and make you look bad. I am vague in statement to draw folks in, test your mind, get you to think, maybe your lost, to full of Howard Zinn and the bullshit ideals of the propaganda you have been fed all your life, maybe you will never come to realize how much policitans use their office to make themselves rich. 

Your post on Asura was old.

I have been pointing out that these exciting Solar Projects are all Natural Gas Power Plants, not one person has even tried to dispute this fact. 

You wish to talk about Al Gore and what his role in all of this is, that is fine, it will take time. I have spent at least a few hours addressing this thread and the 92 sq. mile thread. 

Oh, and in case you missed it, my background is this, I am an EPRI analyst so I have a bit of insider information concerning energy. Care for more on Gore? How about an EPRI study next? I can gurantee the study was authorized and written during Al Gore's term as Vice President. The study is about the Environment and Green Renewable Energy, that is Al Gore's forte.

Yes, I am an Electric Power Research Institute Analyst, very few of us in the World, this does not qualify me as an expert on the environment or energy but it does give me a perspective and insight to things the ordinary person never considers.

EPRI does all kinds of research, everything relating to Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and the Environment is done at EPRI, typically financed by the Government and working with Universities. 

Electric Power Research Institute



> The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is an independent, non-profit company performing research, development and demonstration in the electricity sector for the benefit of the public.


----------

