# Why does the left demonize affordable energy?



## Clementine

Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?



"The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.

While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:

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

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

Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about *15 to 30 times as much energy* as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."

http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb


----------



## Silhouette

You talking about solar photovoltaic?  or the new type of linear solar thermal steam generators they're already using to get FREE energy in the form of the typical coal-fired steam turbine?

The BigOil and BigCoal advocates always forget to make the distinction what type of solar power they're talking about.  No, I take that back, they always name the most inefficient and most expensive or failed type of solar applications as "the cutting edge in solar".

Have a look at the real cutting edge of solar.  Every day of sunshine is a day the power company doesn't have to burn coal or oil to power the towns nearby.  In heavily populated sunshine rich areas of the South and Southwest, the company can not be burning coal or oil during peak use times (day) for up to 300 days per year.  Talk about improving your electric company's profit margin!

Just mirrors set up in a line, close to the oil tube they're heating to 300 degrees celsius..that's right...celsius..a couple of heat exchangers, some water and a turbine just like the ones in nuclear, coal and oil power plants.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Clementine said:


> Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?



Politicians (particularly on the left) have been trying to gain more and more control over people.  The only two vestiges they have yet to conquer are energy and healthcare.  Once they control those two things, it will give them access to total control over the people.

After all, for every American, not a day goes by without our involvement with energy or healthcare:  How low or high you set your thermostat, what kind of car you drive, do you take public transportation, what you eat, how much of it you eat, how much exercise you get, how much television you watch, if you smoke, what you smoke, how much you smoke...............

The list goes on and on.  

Only a rube would believe that government actually cares if you get healthcare or not, or how fat you are, or if we have too much pollution, or if we can minimize our so-called carbon foot print.  What they really care about is power.


----------



## Arianrhod

Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey

Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?


----------



## mamooth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What they really care about is power.



I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.

As far as the OP goes ... somebody made an experimental solar plane, therefore he says liberals hate every other plane. That's ... dumb.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Why does the left demonize affordable energy?"

Why does the right lie so much and contrive straw man fallacies – this thread being one of many example.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

mamooth said:


> I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.



No, what I do is observe.  And what I observe is this obsession by government to take over healthcare and energy at the same time.  Yes, baby steps baby steps, but it's like the frog in the pot of cold water.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Only a rube would believe that government actually cares if you get healthcare or not, or how fat you are, or if we have too much pollution, or if we can minimize our so-called carbon foot print. What they really care about is power.



Right, Raycist from Cleveland, the government does these things to mess with you personally, not because the majority has agreed these are things we ought to do.


----------



## tyroneweaver

The left loves to create false hope.
They think that a skate board with a briggs and stratton engine will pull a set of  50 Ton doubles


----------



## washamericom

_Why does the left demonize affordable energy?_

because they hate the sun. they are the sun haters.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a rube would believe that government actually cares if you get healthcare or not, or how fat you are, or if we have too much pollution, or if we can minimize our so-called carbon foot print. What they really care about is power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, Raycist from Cleveland, the government does these things to mess with you personally, not because the majority has agreed these are things we ought to do.
Click to expand...


They might.  They spend a hell of a lot of time and money trying to scare the hell out of people. 

The real problem is that nobody gets a bill from the government for environmental costs.  It's intrinsic in all the products we buy.  You never see it, but it's there. 

DumBama forced restaurants to post calorie count on all their items.  I say we should do the same with our products.  Have Trump and the Republicans write a law that all products have to contain their environmental costs on the package. 

Perhaps if people knew what they were actually paying out of their pockets for these costs, there wouldn't be so much support for it.


----------



## BluesLegend

The left hates fossil fuels because...wait for it...its corporations pocketing the profits and not them.


----------



## Silhouette

washamericom said:


> they hate the sun. they are the sun haters.


Well you can hardly blame them.  Take a reflector from a car headlight out, put on a pair of welding glasses, put a piece of wood in the center clip where the bulb would go...point it at the sun and wait about 8 seconds. DO NOT LOOK NEAR THE CENTER OF THE CONCAVE REFLECTOR AT ALL.

Maybe they got burned by the sun this way?  But it shows you how the linear fresnel solar thermal array, close to the target, can heat the oil in the tube up to 300 degrees CELSIUS very rapidly.  BigOil doesn't want the public to know how much free energy there is trapped in a focused pool of solar radiation.


----------



## BluesLegend

Arianrhod said:


> Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey
> 
> Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?



You seem clueless to the amount of really toxic waste generated by manufacturing batteries for your 'green' car.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

BluesLegend said:


> The left hates fossil fuels because...wait for it...its corporations pocketing the profits and not them.



That's part of it, but the main reason is they were instructed to hate it.


----------



## davecmarino

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations. 

The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service. 

The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines. 

Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies. 

If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again. 

Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time. 

Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BluesLegend

Ray From Cleveland said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left hates fossil fuels because...wait for it...its corporations pocketing the profits and not them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's part of it, but the main reason is they were instructed to hate it.
Click to expand...


I can't argue with that, the left seems to love being told what to think and do.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

davecmarino said:


> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy. 

About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.  

Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.


----------



## davecmarino

Ray From Cleveland said:


> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
Click to expand...



Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

davecmarino said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
Click to expand...


I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are.  But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable.  And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.


----------



## Clementine

mamooth said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they really care about is power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.
> 
> As far as the OP goes ... somebody made an experimental solar plane, therefore he says liberals hate every other plane. That's ... dumb.
Click to expand...




Liberals love planes, especially private, fuel-guzzling planes as long as they are on them.   Pelosi used to whine because she wanted the biggest plane to use.    

No, they love their planes and they love their limos.   What they hate is the little people driving pickup trucks and SUVs.   

And many liberals are bitching about having those solar windmills near their property.    They work, but so many people don't want to see or hear them.   

They want their big houses, limos, private jets and yachts but they preach to the rest of us to take public transportation or buy tiny cars to save gas.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Clementine said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they really care about is power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.
> 
> As far as the OP goes ... somebody made an experimental solar plane, therefore he says liberals hate every other plane. That's ... dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals love planes, especially private, fuel-guzzling planes as long as they are on them.   Pelosi used to whine because she wanted the biggest plane to use.
> 
> No, they love their planes and they love their limos.   What they hate is the little people driving pickup trucks and SUVs.
> 
> And many liberals are bitching about having those solar windmills near their property.    They work, but so many people don't want to see or hear them.
> 
> They want their big houses, limos, private jets and yachts but they preach to the rest of us to take public transportation or buy tiny cars to save gas.
Click to expand...



Kennedy tries to halt windmills


----------



## Clementine

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Kennedy tries to halt windmills



Makes no sense if the goal is clean energy.     Maybe that isn't really their goal.

And the cost of solar panels on homes is ridiculous.   Many are getting them with help from tax payer money. 

We need efficient and low cost ways to heat our homes and drive our cars.   Electric cars are also grossly expensive so it's not like the average person can afford one. 

Until there is an alternative that works as well and is reasonably priced, they need to stop attacking energy companies.

I'm sure they like us all to drive the little smart cars.   You might get killed if you hit a deer or even a raccoon, but hey, you'll make the libs happy.    They need the fuel for their mansions, planes, yachts and limos.    Just like those Hollywood people who preach liberalism but when you see them arrive at the Oscars, one or two people get out of each limo and the limos are lined up for miles.    They can't fucking carpool in a limo, but want us in those tiny death traps.   Leonardo recently got an award for helping the environment and, of course, he rode in his private jet for the 8,000 trip.   Now that's real concern when he could have gotten a first class ticket on any other plane.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Clementine said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy tries to halt windmills
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Makes no sense if the goal is clean energy.     Maybe that isn't really their goal.
> 
> And the cost of solar panels on homes is ridiculous.   Many are getting them with help from tax payer money.
> 
> We need efficient and low cost ways to heat our homes and drive our cars.   Electric cars are also grossly expensive so it's not like the average person can afford one.
> 
> Until there is an alternative that works as well and is reasonably priced, they need to stop attacking energy companies.
Click to expand...


What the left wants to do is try to force the Model-T into fuel injection.  It has to come on it's own time. 

In 100 years from now, nobody will be using fossil fuel; not because of government mandate (hopefully), but because of technology developed by the private sector.  

Clean energy is not leftists goals, clean energy is a reason for government to take control of our energy.


----------



## easyt65

Solyndra + 12....

Millions of tax dollars stolen and given to Obama high-dollar donors to cover their 'gambling' losses (the money they had invested in those 13 bankrupt 'green energy' companies)...


----------



## Clementine

They want to get rid of coal companies and tax the shit out of oil.    Without an affordable alternative, we are so screwed.   

Yea, lots of money lost on Solyndra and other companies.    That whole thing was nothing but a scam.  

They want to impose cap and trade policies, which will take down our economy.   And the poor will be hit the hardest.

I am so sick of the left claiming they are helping people when their policies only make things worse for the average person.

Every move they make transfers more power from the people to government and the blind sheep are more worried about getting more free minutes on their Obamaphones and more money on their EBT cards.    Useful idiots are everywhere and multiplying like rabbits.


----------



## Andylusion

Silhouette said:


> You talking about solar photovoltaic?  or the new type of linear solar thermal steam generators they're already using to get FREE energy in the form of the typical coal-fired steam turbine?
> 
> The BigOil and BigCoal advocates always forget to make the distinction what type of solar power they're talking about.  No, I take that back, they always name the most inefficient and most expensive or failed type of solar applications as "the cutting edge in solar".
> 
> Have a look at the real cutting edge of solar.  Every day of sunshine is a day the power company doesn't have to burn coal or oil to power the towns nearby.  In heavily populated sunshine rich areas of the South and Southwest, the company can not be burning coal or oil during peak use times (day) for up to 300 days per year.  Talk about improving your electric company's profit margin!
> 
> Just mirrors set up in a line, close to the oil tube they're heating to 300 degrees celsius..that's right...celsius..a couple of heat exchangers, some water and a turbine just like the ones in nuclear, coal and oil power plants.



BigOil and BigCoal advocates made it excessively clear in the first post, exactly what type of solar power they were talking about.

The only person confused on that, is apparently you.   Try reading, before replying.

Second, if you can find a way to fit enough steam pipes, water, and mirrors, to power a Boeing 474 Jet, by all means patent and sell it.   Otherwise, all your BS pipes and steam generators are a joke.

Third, there is nothing free about it.  "Sun light is free!"  So is oil.  We don't pay the Earth, for the oil we get either.   Both are free.

The cost is in collecting that free energy, and making it useful.

Moreover, there are always bleeding edge technologies that are supposed to explode the future into this amazing Utopia.   

But your cited solar thermal power, isn't even an attempt at that Utopia.   Did you even look at the numbers?   13¢ per watt?   Coal is 7¢, and NatGas is 5¢.   So it's more than double the conventional power cost, and you just cited that as your most efficient?

Not to mention you can't find how much the entire project costs, nor can you determine how much the government of California taxed the poor, to pay these big CEO investors, to make this power station.... oh and let's not forget it's a whooping 5 MWs of power.   Oh they are planning to expand it to 25 MWs of power.

Let's see, the most tiny, cheapest, smallest, least power generating conventional power plant in Ohio is...... 480 MWs.   One single natural gas power plant, is equal to 20 of your solar easy bake oven power plants.

I wonder how that compares in cost.  I wager not favorably.

If this is the best your "free" energy crap has to offer.... then you don't have much to offer.

Not to say we shouldn't continue research, but don't pretend that you eco-freaks have it all figured out. You got nothing.  NOTHING.


----------



## Andylusion

davecmarino said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
Click to expand...


Exactly right.  And in addition, they also seem to ignore the operational losses over time.     In other words, they pretend that a wind mill will produce the same amount of power in 10 years, that they do when they are first built.      They assume that, because that's how a nuclear power plant would work.   Power plants built in the 1970s, are still producing almost as much power today, as they were when they first turned on.

Wind mills.... Not so much.  In 10 years, they will be producing only about 85% of the power they were originally making.  In 20, only about 70%.

This is why break even analysis for green energy almost never is accurate.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> They might. They spend a hell of a lot of time and money trying to scare the hell out of people.
> 
> The real problem is that nobody gets a bill from the government for environmental costs. It's intrinsic in all the products we buy. You never see it, but it's there.
> 
> DumBama forced restaurants to post calorie count on all their items. I say we should do the same with our products. Have Trump and the Republicans write a law that all products have to contain their environmental costs on the package.
> 
> Perhaps if people knew what they were actually paying out of their pockets for these costs, there wouldn't be so much support for it.



Guy, you live in a city where the River used to catch on fire because it was so fucking polluted.  

Maybe you should think about the cost of NOT doing the environmental things.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> In 100 years from now, nobody will be using fossil fuel; not because of government mandate (hopefully), but because of technology developed by the private sector.



Yes, Magic Pixie Dust from our great Capitalist Overlords... 

They've resisted clean energy kicking and screaming the whole way.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Why does the right spend so much time trying to tell the left what the left thinks?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

LoneLaugher said:


> Why does the right spend so much time trying to tell the left what the left thinks?



Because the left doesn't know what they think themselves until somebody tells them.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 100 years from now, nobody will be using fossil fuel; not because of government mandate (hopefully), but because of technology developed by the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Magic Pixie Dust from our great Capitalist Overlords...
> 
> They've resisted clean energy kicking and screaming the whole way.
Click to expand...


Of course they did because they understand nobody wants it now due to inefficiency and cost.  

Private industry can't force people to buy something they don't want.  Only government does that.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Of course they did because they understand nobody wants it now due to inefficiency and cost.
> 
> Private industry can't force people to buy something they don't want. Only government does that.



Actually, private industry spends Billions of dollars telling people they want things they don't need.  If the government had the kind of propaganda spending private industry has, you'd be amazed how quickly minds can be swayed.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> they hate the sun. they are the sun haters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can hardly blame them.  Take a reflector from a car headlight out, put on a pair of welding glasses, put a piece of wood in the center clip where the bulb would go...point it at the sun and wait about 8 seconds. DO NOT LOOK NEAR THE CENTER OF THE CONCAVE REFLECTOR AT ALL.
> 
> Maybe they got burned by the sun this way?  But it shows you how the linear fresnel solar thermal array, close to the target, can heat the oil in the tube up to 300 degrees CELSIUS very rapidly.  BigOil doesn't want the public to know how much free energy there is trapped in a focused pool of solar radiation.
Click to expand...


I could do that without bothering with the goggles...totally overcast right now, and will be for most of the next 2 days.

There is no free energy, Silly, everything has a cost...but you know that.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might. They spend a hell of a lot of time and money trying to scare the hell out of people.
> 
> The real problem is that nobody gets a bill from the government for environmental costs. It's intrinsic in all the products we buy. You never see it, but it's there.
> 
> DumBama forced restaurants to post calorie count on all their items. I say we should do the same with our products. Have Trump and the Republicans write a law that all products have to contain their environmental costs on the package.
> 
> Perhaps if people knew what they were actually paying out of their pockets for these costs, there wouldn't be so much support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you live in a city where the River used to catch on fire because it was so fucking polluted.
> 
> Maybe you should think about the cost of NOT doing the environmental things.
Click to expand...


That was different Joe.  Putting chemicals in the river was experimental as the theory was the water would dilute the chemicals so much that they wouldn't be traceable.  When the river caught fire, the theory was proven wrong.   Water doesn't catch on fire, so we had empirical evidence that yes, those chemicals were polluting the waters. 

That's not the case with other environmental situations that in most instances, are just quite normal such as warmer winters, hurricanes, tornadoes and so forth.  Unlike the river, it's simply an unproven theory that we have spent trillions of dollars on, and made nobody happy in the process.  In fact, I would be willing to bet that environmentalists are more unhappy now than they were 35 years ago.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did because they understand nobody wants it now due to inefficiency and cost.
> 
> Private industry can't force people to buy something they don't want. Only government does that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, private industry spends Billions of dollars telling people they want things they don't need.  If the government had the kind of propaganda spending private industry has, you'd be amazed how quickly minds can be swayed.
Click to expand...


Yes Joe, it's called advertising.  We've been using it for many decades now.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That was different Joe. Putting chemicals in the river was experimental as the theory was the water would dilute the chemicals so much that they wouldn't be traceable. When the river caught fire, the theory was proven wrong. Water doesn't catch on fire, so we had empirical evidence that yes, those chemicals were polluting the waters.



Right.  those kind hearted rich people were just trying to dillute the flammable chemicals... not put them somewhere to get them out of the way. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's not the case with other environmental situations that in most instances, are just quite normal such as warmer winters, hurricanes, tornadoes and so forth. Unlike the river, it's simply an unproven theory that we have spent trillions of dollars on, and made nobody happy in the process. In fact, I would be willing to bet that environmentalists are more unhappy now than they were 35 years ago.



Except Global Warming isn't "unproven".  You only have to look at the retreating glaciers, melting ice caps and buildings collapsing due permafrost disappearing to see that. 

The problem is with you deniers is that you are evidence-impervious. There's no evidence they can present you with that would make you accept more government control. You people would rather condemn future generations to death than accept government control because you done hates the government, Cleetus.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes Joe, it's called advertising. We've been using it for many decades now.



Another point that went right over your pointed head, Cleetus.


----------



## Wilbur Right

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.





Yea but you think you understand a lot of things that you don't.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Except Global Warming isn't "unproven". You only have to look at the retreating glaciers, melting ice caps and buildings collapsing due permafrost disappearing to see that.
> 
> The problem is with you deniers is that you are evidence-impervious. There's no evidence they can present you with that would make you accept more government control. You people would rather condemn future generations to death than accept government control because you done hates the government, Cleetus.



Right Cleetus, it's what we have been telling you on the left for years: the earth, climate and temperature do change.  That's the way God made this place.  The climate has been changing since he put the earth here, and it will continue to change long after we are gone.  How many factories and SUV"s did we have at the beginning of the ice age meltdown?  

Energy is power, and the more power you give the government, the more they will abuse it as history shows.  But you on the left believe that people are too stupid to know what's good for them.  Government should make all your decisions for you.


----------



## Wilbur Right

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Putting chemicals in the river was experimental as the theory was the water would dilute the chemicals so much that they wouldn't be traceable.






Now Ray why would those companies putting chemicals in the river want those chemicals to be "untraceable"?

Weren't those good chemicals Ray? Would you drink them chemicals ray?

Didn't the fish kills give you a hint of the toxicity? You needed the river to burn before you thought there might be a problem?

LMAO..Damn you are stupid Ray.


----------



## washamericom

how close are we to building solar collector panels into the bodies of cars that sit in the sun all day? florida the west etc. it seems like a partial solution to me.


----------



## Wilbur Right

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's the way God made this place. The climate has been changing since he put the earth here, and it will continue to change long after we are gone.





LMAO.

Didn't God make it so that all that carbon in the form of oil and coal, didn't God store that stuff underground?

Was there something in the Bible that said to dig all that carbon up and burn it?

We are conducting a science experiment with the earth. Initial results aren't looking good.

God has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

washamericom said:


> how close are we to building solar collector panels into the bodies of cars that sit in the sun all day? florida the west etc. it seems like a partial solution to me.



Those few panels wouldn't give you enough power to make it to the gas station. 

It's the same way with electric cars.  I can't picture myself calling work and telling them that I can't make it because my car was plugged in all night but we had a power outage. 

Alternative energy is just too expensive and troublesome at this point.  As I said earlier, if we allow it to develop on it's own time, that's how we will find a reasonable alternative to fossil fuels.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Arianrhod said:


> Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey
> 
> Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?


That plane is impractical for anything but a science project


----------



## Skull Pilot

You people do know that solar power isn't "free" don't you?


----------



## davecmarino

Ray From Cleveland said:


> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are.  But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable.  And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.
Click to expand...



Depends on the design. Windmills are inherently simple. The only part that is sophisticated is the electric generator that is spun by the blades. Electric generators is just a single axel with spun copper and magnets. The generator should last a very long time if it was a commercial quality unit as most are even sealed units that don't require the maintenance of any lubricating systems until you get into the largest units. 

The blades are normally aluminum and the base is stainless steel. 

Windpower is viable in areas with a high enough constant wind profile as an additional energy source. This is slightly over 1/2 of the United States.


----------



## davecmarino

Andylusion said:


> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  And in addition, they also seem to ignore the operational losses over time.     In other words, they pretend that a wind mill will produce the same amount of power in 10 years, that they do when they are first built.      They assume that, because that's how a nuclear power plant would work.   Power plants built in the 1970s, are still producing almost as much power today, as they were when they first turned on.
> 
> Wind mills.... Not so much.  In 10 years, they will be producing only about 85% of the power they were originally making.  In 20, only about 70%.
> 
> This is why break even analysis for green energy almost never is accurate.
Click to expand...



Correct. The copper windings slowly breakdown and their tolerances are not as tight resulting in a loss of efficiency.  But the biggest breakdown is not at the windmill but at the batteries as these need to be replaced every 5 to 10 years. These battery replacements can be expensive depending of the size of the system and the total storage capacity it had built into its design.


----------



## Old Yeller

washamericom said:


> how close are we to building solar collector panels into the bodies of cars that sit in the sun all day? florida the west etc. it seems like a partial solution to me.


Anyone can do it now.  You could charge a battery in the car.  File papers, pay fees, work with UL CSA EPA LRB, hiere lawyers accountants taxman, rent buildings, test it out, try to sell it in AZ NV.........see what you can come up with.   Got deep pockets?


----------



## washamericom

num_nut said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> how close are we to building solar collector panels into the bodies of cars that sit in the sun all day? florida the west etc. it seems like a partial solution to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can do it now.  You could charge a battery in the car.  File papers, pay fees, work with UL CSA EPA LRB, hiere lawyers accountants taxman, rent buildings, test it out, try to sell it in AZ NV.........see what you can come up with.   Got deep pockets?
Click to expand...

it's like that movie tucker. but one thing i am doing is turning my old 528 into an electric vehicle. everything related to combustion comes out, so the weight of the motor trans exhaust etc is replaced by 12 v deep cycle batteries. it's a big golf cart. the design objective is to get to town ten miles away and home. doesn't have to go over forty.

electric motors will provide propulsion, there is plenty of torque and will have polarity reverse.

i'm in vermont not the sunniest, so if it works here, it can make it anywhere, ideally in a sunny state.

i'm after negative entropy... lol  but i'll start with this.

i think it will work, a trunk and engine compartment will house the golf cart batteries.

as described, this concept would never make it past the dot or the big three or five.


----------



## Silhouette

Wilbur Right said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Putting chemicals in the river was experimental as the theory was the water would dilute the chemicals so much that they wouldn't be traceable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now Ray why would those companies putting chemicals in the river want those chemicals to be "untraceable"?
> 
> Weren't those good chemicals Ray? Would you drink them chemicals ray?
> 
> Didn't the fish kills give you a hint of the toxicity? You needed the river to burn before you thought there might be a problem?
> 
> LMAO..Damn you are stupid Ray.
Click to expand...

Fracking and the toxic stew that can never be cleaned up, leaching slowly over time into the last freshwater aquifers, artesians, springs, streams and rivers will be seen by what few survivors there are in the future gathered around the very last sources of fresh water to drink, as one of of the most insidious, predictable and foul environmental disasters ever brought on by the greed of just a few.  Second only to crumbilng/melting down nuclear plants whose only "trick" at producing power is to use radiation instead of focused sunlight, oil or coal to boil water to run turbines.

Japan sits on the 1/3 largest natural geothermal steam reservoir in the world, and GE managed to convince them that boiling water with deadly radiation was "far superior" to simply using the boiling water just under the ground everywhere there.

And now Tokyo has escalating radiation and cases of child illnesses that "can't be explained" (Unkotare would say)...  Had they used the free boiling water just under the ground, it would've cost them next to nothing to produce the same power, and they wouldn't have a disaster that destroyed their entire nation.  No matter how much they're trying to pretend like it hasn't.  Fukushima had four reactors melt down.  Chernobyl, just one.  The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is larger than the entire Japanese main island.  So, there's the truth of what's really going on in Japan, thanks to bullshit water boiling.

People who opine on energy should first become acquainted with the simple, caveman like way in which we produce it.  If you understand that most of our energy is produced either by running water through hydro dam turbines, or boiling it to spin steam turbines, you'd know that the key to energy is the motion of water, funneled or boiled where steam forces a pressure current.  Once you understand that simple concept, you can look to any number of sources that aren't going to destroy the earth or humanity, just to boil water.

One source in the sunny Southwest, or even areas that are much further north that have moderate amounts of sun (you just change the angle of the parabolic mirrors to accommodate), is focused solar radiation to boil water.  Rapidly these erector-set like simple systems boil a thermal oil in a tube placed not far away to 300 degrees celsius, off to heat exchangers, then boiling water and the turbine.

Why aren't we doing that?  The politics of energy greed.  Very simple.  If a system creates power simply, efficiently and cleanly, and has a FREE energy source, it's very hard to corral and monopolize.  Big, dangerous, dirty, hard to get at ways of boiling water take connections, difficult permits and the power coming from that, extraordinarily easy to monopolize....and therefore, profit insanely off of.

That's why I offered as a suggestion long ago, that Congress pass an Act that allows these greedy assholes the "right" to monopolize solar thermal as a hybrid to existing coal and oil water boilers.  Nuclear is insane (the costs of mining, refining, production and waste management mean that no nuclear plant has ever turned a profit, and instead relies on taxpayer's subsidies to stay running) and every nuclear water boiler on earth must be decommissioned.  Then, the greedy assholes can rake in EVEN MORE cash with their continuing monopolies but at least we customers can breathe a sigh of relief that our power isn't killing the earth forever.  I thought it was the perfect compromise.


----------



## Agit8r

Only morons think that being put into an early grave is "affordable"


----------



## there4eyeM

What is truly surprising is the vehemence with which some people militate against progress in alternative energy fields and for the fatal status quo. Defending 'big oil' as if those companies were benefactors doing us a favor, for example, is wondrous strange.


----------



## washamericom

davecmarino said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  And in addition, they also seem to ignore the operational losses over time.     In other words, they pretend that a wind mill will produce the same amount of power in 10 years, that they do when they are first built.      They assume that, because that's how a nuclear power plant would work.   Power plants built in the 1970s, are still producing almost as much power today, as they were when they first turned on.
> 
> Wind mills.... Not so much.  In 10 years, they will be producing only about 85% of the power they were originally making.  In 20, only about 70%.
> 
> This is why break even analysis for green energy almost never is accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The copper windings slowly breakdown and their tolerances are not as tight resulting in a loss of efficiency.  But the biggest breakdown is not at the windmill but at the batteries as these need to be replaced every 5 to 10 years. These battery replacements can be expensive depending of the size of the system and the total storage capacity it had built into its design.
Click to expand...

this is great to see folks discussing this so knowledgeably, thanks.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

davecmarino said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are.  But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable.  And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the design. Windmills are inherently simple. The only part that is sophisticated is the electric generator that is spun by the blades. Electric generators is just a single axel with spun copper and magnets. The generator should last a very long time if it was a commercial quality unit as most are even sealed units that don't require the maintenance of any lubricating systems until you get into the largest units.
> 
> The blades are normally aluminum and the base is stainless steel.
> 
> Windpower is viable in areas with a high enough constant wind profile as an additional energy source. This is slightly over 1/2 of the United States.
Click to expand...


You're not going to find many places windier than Cleveland.  Once I read where Cleveland was windier than the windy city of Chicago technically. 

They really wanted to build that windmill on Lake Erie but backed off of the idea because of cost.  Even looking at the most extreme, if there was some savings to be had, it would be  so little that it wouldn't worth the trouble.  

If it were a real investment, hell, I would put one in my backyard.  I have enough room for it and if it really saved me money, I wouldn't mind trimming the grass around the thing.


----------



## washamericom

Silhouette said:


> Wilbur Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Putting chemicals in the river was experimental as the theory was the water would dilute the chemicals so much that they wouldn't be traceable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now Ray why would those companies putting chemicals in the river want those chemicals to be "untraceable"?
> 
> Weren't those good chemicals Ray? Would you drink them chemicals ray?
> 
> Didn't the fish kills give you a hint of the toxicity? You needed the river to burn before you thought there might be a problem?
> 
> LMAO..Damn you are stupid Ray.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fracking and the toxic stew that can never be cleaned up, leaching slowly over time into the last freshwater aquifers, artesians, springs, streams and rivers will be seen by what few survivors there are in the future gathered around the very last sources of fresh water to drink, as one of of the most insidious, predictable and foul environmental disasters ever brought on by the greed of just a few.  Second only to crumbilng/melting down nuclear plants whose only "trick" at producing power is to use radiation instead of focused sunlight, oil or coal to boil water to run turbines.
> 
> Japan sits on the 1/3 largest natural geothermal steam reservoir in the world, and GE managed to convince them that boiling water with deadly radiation was "far superior" to simply using the boiling water just under the ground everywhere there.
> 
> And now Tokyo has escalating radiation and cases of child illnesses that "can't be explained" (Unkotare would say)...  Had they used the free boiling water just under the ground, it would've cost them next to nothing to produce the same power, and they wouldn't have a disaster that destroyed their entire nation.  No matter how much they're trying to pretend like it hasn't.  Fukushima had four reactors melt down.  Chernobyl, just one.  The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is larger than the entire Japanese main island.  So, there's the truth of what's really going on in Japan, thanks to bullshit water boiling.
> 
> People who opine on energy should first become acquainted with the simple, caveman like way in which we produce it.  If you understand that most of our energy is produced either by running water through hydro dam turbines, or boiling it to spin steam turbines, you'd know that the key to energy is the motion of water, funneled or boiled where steam forces a pressure current.  Once you understand that simple concept, you can look to any number of sources that aren't going to destroy the earth or humanity, just to boil water.
> 
> One source in the sunny Southwest, or even areas that are much further north that have moderate amounts of sun (you just change the angle of the parabolic mirrors to accommodate), is focused solar radiation to boil water.  Rapidly these erector-set like simple systems boil a thermal oil in a tube placed not far away to 300 degrees celsius, off to heat exchangers, then boiling water and the turbine.
Click to expand...

solar towers. and the quest for tesla's wireless power. we have now, drones that can recharge in flight. the obvious problem with that is if you're not careful, you could put someone's eye out.


----------



## Votto

Clementine said:


> Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?
> 
> 
> 
> "The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.
> 
> While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:
> 
> The Solar Impulse 2 features *17,000 solar cells* crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.
> 
> By contrast, a *Boeing 747-400* running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.
> 
> Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about *15 to 30 times as much energy* as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb



You fail to realize that the ultimate goal of the left is to destroy the economy.  Here is why.

1.  Destroying the economy can be blamed on the free market and the need for more government control over the so called "free markets".

2.  Destroying the economy means that you will have less money to buy larger houses to heat and cool, large SUV's to burn carbon emissions, and less funds to have more children.

3.  Destroying the economy means that there will be less people burning carbon emissions and buying plastic bottles that pollute the worlds oceans.

4.  Destroying the economy means that you will have less access to health care or health care that is far inferior to what you have today which means less carbon footprints.

5.  Destroying the economy ultimately means population control and the preservation of natural resources that the elitists lust after.

So as we see, the salvation for the world is destroying the economy.  It is a kinder and gentler way to invoke mass genocide.

You can find this mentality all over the media.


----------



## washamericom

Ray From Cleveland said:


> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are.  But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable.  And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the design. Windmills are inherently simple. The only part that is sophisticated is the electric generator that is spun by the blades. Electric generators is just a single axel with spun copper and magnets. The generator should last a very long time if it was a commercial quality unit as most are even sealed units that don't require the maintenance of any lubricating systems until you get into the largest units.
> 
> The blades are normally aluminum and the base is stainless steel.
> 
> Windpower is viable in areas with a high enough constant wind profile as an additional energy source. This is slightly over 1/2 of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to find many places windier than Cleveland.  Once I read where Cleveland was windier than the windy city of Chicago technically.
> 
> They really wanted to build that windmill on Lake Erie but backed off of the idea because of cost.  Even looking at the most extreme, if there was some savings to be had, it would be  so little that it wouldn't worth the trouble.
> 
> If it were a real investment, hell, I would put one in my backyard.  I have enough room for it and if it really saved me money, I wouldn't mind trimming the grass around the thing.
Click to expand...

you're right, there's a diminishing return on cost efficiently. bernie's right about one thing, that solar panels have dropped 75 80 %, that's a huge step forward. we knew it was coming because we have so much sand.


----------



## Silhouette

We are not talking about solar panels.


----------



## Silhouette

Fracking and the toxic stew that can never be cleaned up, leaching slowly over time into the last freshwater aquifers, artesians, springs, streams and rivers will be seen by what few survivors there are in the future gathered around the very last sources of fresh water to drink, as one of of the most insidious, predictable and foul environmental disasters ever brought on by the greed of just a few.  Second only to crumbilng/melting down nuclear plants whose only "trick" at producing power is to use radiation instead of focused sunlight, oil or coal to boil water to run turbines.

Japan sits on the 1/3 largest natural geothermal steam reservoir in the world, and GE managed to convince them that boiling water with deadly radiation was "far superior" to simply using the boiling water just under the ground everywhere there.

And now Tokyo has escalating radiation and cases of child illnesses that "can't be explained" (Unkotare would say)...  Had they used the free boiling water just under the ground, it would've cost them next to nothing to produce the same power, and they wouldn't have a disaster that destroyed their entire nation.  No matter how much they're trying to pretend like it hasn't.  Fukushima had four reactors melt down.  Chernobyl, just one.  The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is larger than the entire Japanese main island.  So, there's the truth of what's really going on in Japan, thanks to bullshit water boiling.

People who opine on energy should first become acquainted with the simple, caveman like way in which we produce it.  If you understand that most of our energy is produced either by running water through hydro dam turbines, or boiling it to spin steam turbines, you'd know that the key to energy is the motion of water, funneled or boiled where steam forces a pressure current.  Once you understand that simple concept, you can look to any number of sources that aren't going to destroy the earth or humanity, just to boil water.

One source in the sunny Southwest, or even areas that are much further north that have moderate amounts of sun (you just change the angle of the parabolic mirrors to accommodate), is focused solar radiation to boil water.  Rapidly these erector-set like simple systems boil a thermal oil in a tube placed not far away to 300 degrees celsius, off to heat exchangers, then boiling water and the turbine.

Why aren't we doing that?  The politics of energy greed.  Very simple.  If a system creates power simply, efficiently and cleanly, and has a FREE energy source, it's very hard to corral and monopolize.  Big, dangerous, dirty, hard to get at ways of boiling water take connections, difficult permits and the power coming from that, extraordinarily easy to monopolize....and therefore, profit insanely off of.

That's why I offered as a suggestion long ago, that Congress pass an Act that allows these greedy assholes the "right" to monopolize solar thermal as a hybrid to existing coal and oil water boilers.  Nuclear is insane (the costs of mining, refining, production and waste management mean that no nuclear plant has ever turned a profit, and instead relies on taxpayer's subsidies to stay running) and every nuclear water boiler on earth must be decommissioned.  Then, the greedy assholes can rake in EVEN MORE cash with their continuing monopolies but at least we customers can breathe a sigh of relief that our power isn't killing the earth forever.  I thought it was the perfect compromise.


washamericom said:


> *solar towers. *and the quest for tesla's wireless power. we have now, drones that can recharge in flight. the obvious problem with that is if you're not careful, you could put someone's eye out.



*NOT SOLAR TOWERS!!!!  THIS!: *


----------



## thereisnospoon

Clementine said:


> Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?
> 
> 
> 
> "The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.
> 
> While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:
> 
> The Solar Impulse 2 features *17,000 solar cells* crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.
> 
> By contrast, a *Boeing 747-400* running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.
> 
> Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about *15 to 30 times as much energy* as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb


The bottom line is that liberals despise a free society. A mobile society is just that. The proof of this is in the left wing agenda. Liberals despise the concept of suburbs, single family homes, automobiles and private property. Left wingers believe we should all be crammed into urban centers and left to fend for ourselves while they the ruling elite class get to live in far flung gated communities complete with private armed security teams and attack dogs.
A reminder of this


Clementine said:


> Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?
> 
> 
> 
> "The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.
> 
> While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:
> 
> The Solar Impulse 2 features *17,000 solar cells* crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.
> 
> By contrast, a *Boeing 747-400* running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.
> 
> Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about *15 to 30 times as much energy* as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb


It is well documented that liberals despise a free or relatively free society. The have this idea because a free people are more difficult to control.
Inexpensive fuel allows mobility and more choices. The more choices available to a society the less dependency on government is required.


----------



## Silhouette

And the most inexpensive fuel of all?  Concentrated solar thermal radiation, near-source, boiling water to run turbines.  Just like all other power companies do using dirty and dangerous (and far more expensive) fuels to do...

Next least expensive "allowing more freedom"?  Geothermal steam to run turbines.


----------



## Votto

thereisnospoon said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?
> 
> 
> 
> "The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.
> 
> While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:
> 
> The Solar Impulse 2 features *17,000 solar cells* crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.
> 
> By contrast, a *Boeing 747-400* running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.
> 
> Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about *15 to 30 times as much energy* as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that liberals despise a free society. A mobile society is just that. The proof of this is in the left wing agenda. Liberals despise the concept of suburbs, single family homes, automobiles and private property. Left wingers believe we should all be crammed into urban centers and left to fend for ourselves while they the ruling elite class get to live in far flung gated communities complete with private armed security teams and attack dogs.
> A reminder of this
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?
> 
> 
> 
> "The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.
> 
> While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:
> 
> The Solar Impulse 2 features *17,000 solar cells* crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.
> 
> By contrast, a *Boeing 747-400* running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.
> 
> Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about *15 to 30 times as much energy* as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is well documented that liberals despise a free or relatively free society. The have this idea because a free people are more difficult to control.
> Inexpensive fuel allows mobility and more choices. The more choices available to a society the less dependency on government is required.
Click to expand...


Free will is a problem.  How do you prevent people from doing "bad" things?

It used to be that America was a moral country and a religious people.  They helped each other when they needed help and were family oriented.  However, today with the advent of secular humanism, all of that is gone.  No longer do people try to control their moral impulses, instead, they look for the state to do it for them through the creation of limitless laws.

Today, the US government creates about 40,000 new laws and regulations every year.   My only advice is, build more prisons.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> You talking about solar photovoltaic?  or the new type of linear solar thermal steam generators they're already using to get FREE energy in the form of the typical coal-fired steam turbine?
> 
> The BigOil and BigCoal advocates always forget to make the distinction what type of solar power they're talking about.  No, I take that back, they always name the most inefficient and most expensive or failed type of solar applications as "the cutting edge in solar".
> 
> Have a look at the real cutting edge of solar.  Every day of sunshine is a day the power company doesn't have to burn coal or oil to power the towns nearby.  In heavily populated sunshine rich areas of the South and Southwest, the company can not be burning coal or oil during peak use times (day) for up to 300 days per year.  Talk about improving your electric company's profit margin!
> 
> Just mirrors set up in a line, close to the oil tube they're heating to 300 degrees celsius..that's right...celsius..a couple of heat exchangers, some water and a turbine just like the ones in nuclear, coal and oil power plants.


And in using your illustration, tell me how is this solar farm supposed to get me to work? How is supposed to power large vehicles such as trains, ships and trucks to get goods to market?
And how do you answer those who object then use the courts to keep these solar farms from being constructed in their communities?
Now, I am all in on the development and implementation of new energy sources. Under the following conditions
1. the fuel must be readily available.
2 it must be mass marketable
3. it can be no more costly than present sources.
4. The fuel must perform at a rate equal to or better than present forms of energy
5. it must require little or no expense on the part of users to convert their present equipment/vehicles, etc to use the energy.
Accomplish all of that and you may have your alternative 'green' energy. 
Have at it.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Arianrhod said:


> Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey
> 
> Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?


Come on, you can do better than that. 
Question.....Do you use electricity? Petroleum products? 
I bet you have no clue how that keyboard on which you bless us with your learned opinions is created, do you?
Talk the talk. Walk the walk.


----------



## Silhouette

thereisnospoon said:


> And in using your illustration, tell me how is this solar farm supposed to get me to work? How is supposed to power large vehicles such as trains, ships and trucks to get goods to market?
> .
> Have at it.



Biodiesel.  Trains running on electric, generated by solar thermal hybrid power plants, or diesel generators on board.  You're aware of the fact that they're growing an algae that can be cut into existing diesel gotten from petroleum?  The more they progress with that technology, the less we're going to have to rely on petroleum for diesel.

Between solar thermal hybrid turbines, geothermal turbines and biodiesel, we've got it sewn up in the bag.  Keep your damn profits.  We just want a cleaner earth and less bullshit in the Middle East.


----------



## thereisnospoon

mamooth said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they really care about is power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.
> 
> As far as the OP goes ... somebody made an experimental solar plane, therefore he says liberals hate every other plane. That's ... dumb.
Click to expand...

Oh please. You have been on here spouting off your anti fossil fuel rhetoric. Cut the crap. 
You support this cause due top your creepy worship of Obama. Another short sighted anti fossil fuel dolt.


----------



## thereisnospoon

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a rube would believe that government actually cares if you get healthcare or not, or how fat you are, or if we have too much pollution, or if we can minimize our so-called carbon foot print. What they really care about is power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, Raycist from Cleveland, the government does these things to mess with you personally, not because the majority has agreed these are things we ought to do.
Click to expand...

The race card.....That's right. Lets allow another left wing troll hijack the discussion by interjecting a completely unrelated issue.
Joe, you're a race hypersensitive anti capitalist who has made it abundantly clear of your victim status. 
Good night Gracie.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> Fracking and the toxic stew that can never be cleaned up, leaching slowly over time into the last freshwater aquifers, artesians, springs, streams and rivers will be seen by what few survivors there are in the future gathered around the very last sources of fresh water to drink, as one of of the most insidious, predictable and foul environmental disasters ever brought on by the greed of just a few.  Second only to crumbilng/melting down nuclear plants whose only "trick" at producing power is to use radiation instead of focused sunlight, oil or coal to boil water to run turbines.
> 
> Japan sits on the 1/3 largest natural geothermal steam reservoir in the world, and GE managed to convince them that boiling water with deadly radiation was "far superior" to simply using the boiling water just under the ground everywhere there.
> 
> And now Tokyo has escalating radiation and cases of child illnesses that "can't be explained" (Unkotare would say)...  Had they used the free boiling water just under the ground, it would've cost them next to nothing to produce the same power, and they wouldn't have a disaster that destroyed their entire nation.  No matter how much they're trying to pretend like it hasn't.  Fukushima had four reactors melt down.  Chernobyl, just one.  The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is larger than the entire Japanese main island.  So, there's the truth of what's really going on in Japan, thanks to bullshit water boiling.
> 
> People who opine on energy should first become acquainted with the simple, caveman like way in which we produce it.  If you understand that most of our energy is produced either by running water through hydro dam turbines, or boiling it to spin steam turbines, you'd know that the key to energy is the motion of water, funneled or boiled where steam forces a pressure current.  Once you understand that simple concept, you can look to any number of sources that aren't going to destroy the earth or humanity, just to boil water.
> 
> One source in the sunny Southwest, or even areas that are much further north that have moderate amounts of sun (you just change the angle of the parabolic mirrors to accommodate), is focused solar radiation to boil water.  Rapidly these erector-set like simple systems boil a thermal oil in a tube placed not far away to 300 degrees celsius, off to heat exchangers, then boiling water and the turbine.
> 
> Why aren't we doing that?  The politics of energy greed.  Very simple.  If a system creates power simply, efficiently and cleanly, and has a FREE energy source, it's very hard to corral and monopolize.  Big, dangerous, dirty, hard to get at ways of boiling water take connections, difficult permits and the power coming from that, extraordinarily easy to monopolize....and therefore, profit insanely off of.
> 
> That's why I offered as a suggestion long ago, that Congress pass an Act that allows these greedy assholes the "right" to monopolize solar thermal as a hybrid to existing coal and oil water boilers.  Nuclear is insane (the costs of mining, refining, production and waste management mean that no nuclear plant has ever turned a profit, and instead relies on taxpayer's subsidies to stay running) and every nuclear water boiler on earth must be decommissioned.  Then, the greedy assholes can rake in EVEN MORE cash with their continuing monopolies but at least we customers can breathe a sigh of relief that our power isn't killing the earth forever.  I thought it was the perfect compromise.
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> *solar towers. *and the quest for tesla's wireless power. we have now, drones that can recharge in flight. the obvious problem with that is if you're not careful, you could put someone's eye out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NOT SOLAR TOWERS!!!!  THIS!: *
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah....Stow it.
Do you have any idea how much filth the manufacturing process of your beloved solar panels and batteries create?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> And the most inexpensive fuel of all?  Concentrated solar thermal radiation, near-source, boiling water to run turbines.  Just like all other power companies do using dirty and dangerous (and far more expensive) fuels to do...
> 
> Next least expensive "allowing more freedom"?  Geothermal steam to run turbines.


Boiling of water creates what? Water vapor. Water vapor goes into the atmosphere and breaks down into its components. Hydrogen and oxygen. Mixed with carbons which occur naturally by air breathing creatures, these create hydro carbons and carbon dioxide. So called greenhouse gases. 
There is no 100% "clean" energy source.


----------



## thereisnospoon

davecmarino said:


> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There once was a federal tax credit for those who installed solar panels for power generation and heating of homes and or water for use in the home.
Obama used political fiat to take that away.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Ray From Cleveland said:


> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
Click to expand...

Yep...and the liberal response is "well the government should subsidize the windmill as well as its maintenance and repair."....
This with never considering from where the funding comes to pay the subsidy.


----------



## Jarlaxle

washamericom said:


> num_nut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> how close are we to building solar collector panels into the bodies of cars that sit in the sun all day? florida the west etc. it seems like a partial solution to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can do it now.  You could charge a battery in the car.  File papers, pay fees, work with UL CSA EPA LRB, hiere lawyers accountants taxman, rent buildings, test it out, try to sell it in AZ NV.........see what you can come up with.   Got deep pockets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's like that movie tucker. but one thing i am doing is turning my old 528 into an electric vehicle. everything related to combustion comes out, so the weight of the motor trans exhaust etc is replaced by 12 v deep cycle batteries. it's a big golf cart. the design objective is to get to town ten miles away and home. doesn't have to go over forty.
> 
> electric motors will provide propulsion, there is plenty of torque and will have polarity reverse.
> 
> i'm in vermont not the sunniest, so if it works here, it can make it anywhere, ideally in a sunny state.
> 
> i'm after negative entropy... lol  but i'll start with this.
> 
> i think it will work, a trunk and engine compartment will house the golf cart batteries.
> 
> as described, this concept would never make it past the dot or the big three or five.
Click to expand...


Be careful...batteries are heavy, so watch your axle weights!


----------



## thereisnospoon

Clementine said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they really care about is power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.
> 
> As far as the OP goes ... somebody made an experimental solar plane, therefore he says liberals hate every other plane. That's ... dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals love planes, especially private, fuel-guzzling planes as long as they are on them.   Pelosi used to whine because she wanted the biggest plane to use.
> 
> No, they love their planes and they love their limos.   What they hate is the little people driving pickup trucks and SUVs.
> 
> And many liberals are bitching about having those solar windmills near their property.    They work, but so many people don't want to see or hear them.
> 
> They want their big houses, limos, private jets and yachts but they preach to the rest of us to take public transportation or buy tiny cars to save gas.
Click to expand...

My vision of a liberal elitist is a person who alone charters a 10 passenger private jet to fly to a conference on alternative energy.
Or we can look at the biggest energy hypocrite of all. Al Gore. He spouts off about global warming cursing use of fossil fuels. Meanwhile he resides in a home that consumes the equivalent of 20 conventional homes.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in using your illustration, tell me how is this solar farm supposed to get me to work? How is supposed to power large vehicles such as trains, ships and trucks to get goods to market?
> .
> Have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biodiesel.  Trains running on electric, generated by solar thermal hybrid power plants, or diesel generators on board.  You're aware of the fact that they're growing an algae that can be cut into existing diesel gotten from petroleum?  The more they progress with that technology, the less we're going to have to rely on petroleum for diesel.
> 
> Between solar thermal hybrid turbines, geothermal turbines and biodiesel, we've got it sewn up in the bag.  Keep your damn profits.  We just want a cleaner earth and less bullshit in the Middle East.
Click to expand...


You do not even know that you do not know what you don't know.  Off the top of my head, biodiesel fails utterly in cold weather. (It basically turns to wax a bit below freezing.)  Powering freight trains with electricity would be a gargantuan undertaking, probably costing tens of trillions of dollars to electrify the rail network (about 150,000 miles of rail, much  of it in very remote areas), build dozens of power plants to power it, and replace tens of thousands of (diesel) locomotives.


----------



## thereisnospoon

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might. They spend a hell of a lot of time and money trying to scare the hell out of people.
> 
> The real problem is that nobody gets a bill from the government for environmental costs. It's intrinsic in all the products we buy. You never see it, but it's there.
> 
> DumBama forced restaurants to post calorie count on all their items. I say we should do the same with our products. Have Trump and the Republicans write a law that all products have to contain their environmental costs on the package.
> 
> Perhaps if people knew what they were actually paying out of their pockets for these costs, there wouldn't be so much support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you live in a city where the River used to catch on fire because it was so fucking polluted.
> 
> Maybe you should think about the cost of NOT doing the environmental things.
Click to expand...

The operative being "used to".....That ship has sailed. Try again. 
Lets see. What can I post in response to your tired vitriolic rhetoric that can again send you off in a rage?


----------



## thereisnospoon

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 100 years from now, nobody will be using fossil fuel; not because of government mandate (hopefully), but because of technology developed by the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Magic Pixie Dust from our great Capitalist Overlords...
> 
> They've resisted clean energy kicking and screaming the whole way.
Click to expand...

Myth. Clean energy. It doesn't exist.


----------



## thereisnospoon

LoneLaugher said:


> Why does the right spend so much time trying to tell the left what the left thinks?


We no longer pay any attention to what your side says. That's useless.
We do however pay close attention to what you do..
And at that point your side is so busted.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Silhouette said:


> And the most inexpensive fuel of all?  Concentrated solar thermal radiation, near-source, boiling water to run turbines.  Just like all other power companies do using dirty and dangerous (and far more expensive) fuels to do...
> 
> Next least expensive "allowing more freedom"?  Geothermal steam to run turbines.



Only one problem with that: water vapor is considered the most dangerous green house gas. 

About ten years ago when I was watching the news, some local company invented an engine that ran on water.  Two days later the news followed up.  They said to stop e-mailing the company because it was purely experimental.  They couldn't sell the engine because water creates water vapor which is considered the most dangerous gas.  They would need EPA approval which they couldn't get in a million years.


----------



## thereisnospoon

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did because they understand nobody wants it now due to inefficiency and cost.
> 
> Private industry can't force people to buy something they don't want. Only government does that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, private industry spends Billions of dollars telling people they want things they don't need.  If the government had the kind of propaganda spending private industry has, you'd be amazed how quickly minds can be swayed.
Click to expand...

Does it? How so? And if it did, then isn't it up to us as responsible adults to determine on what we spend our money?


----------



## Rustic

Clementine said:


> Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?
> 
> 
> 
> "The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.
> 
> While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:
> 
> The Solar Impulse 2 features *17,000 solar cells* crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.
> 
> By contrast, a *Boeing 747-400* running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.
> 
> Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about *15 to 30 times as much energy* as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb


Renewable energy is many, many decades away from being viable...


----------



## thereisnospoon

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might. They spend a hell of a lot of time and money trying to scare the hell out of people.
> 
> The real problem is that nobody gets a bill from the government for environmental costs. It's intrinsic in all the products we buy. You never see it, but it's there.
> 
> DumBama forced restaurants to post calorie count on all their items. I say we should do the same with our products. Have Trump and the Republicans write a law that all products have to contain their environmental costs on the package.
> 
> Perhaps if people knew what they were actually paying out of their pockets for these costs, there wouldn't be so much support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you live in a city where the River used to catch on fire because it was so fucking polluted.
> 
> Maybe you should think about the cost of NOT doing the environmental things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was different Joe.  Putting chemicals in the river was experimental as the theory was the water would dilute the chemicals so much that they wouldn't be traceable.  When the river caught fire, the theory was proven wrong.   Water doesn't catch on fire, so we had empirical evidence that yes, those chemicals were polluting the waters.
> 
> That's not the case with other environmental situations that in most instances, are just quite normal such as warmer winters, hurricanes, tornadoes and so forth.  Unlike the river, it's simply an unproven theory that we have spent trillions of dollars on, and made nobody happy in the process.  In fact, I would be willing to bet that environmentalists are more unhappy now than they were 35 years ago.
Click to expand...

Of course the enviro wackos are unhappy. They are liberals. And on planet liberal, if one is not miserable or complaining, something is wrong.


----------



## Rustic

thereisnospoon said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the most inexpensive fuel of all?  Concentrated solar thermal radiation, near-source, boiling water to run turbines.  Just like all other power companies do using dirty and dangerous (and far more expensive) fuels to do...
> 
> Next least expensive "allowing more freedom"?  Geothermal steam to run turbines.
> 
> 
> 
> Boiling of water creates what? Water vapor. Water vapor goes into the atmosphere and breaks down into its components. Hydrogen and oxygen. Mixed with carbons which occur naturally by air breathing creatures, these create hydro carbons and carbon dioxide. So called greenhouse gases.
> There is no 100% "clean" energy source.
Click to expand...

The most toxic chemicals/elements on the planet are in the makeup of batteries...


----------



## thereisnospoon

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was different Joe. Putting chemicals in the river was experimental as the theory was the water would dilute the chemicals so much that they wouldn't be traceable. When the river caught fire, the theory was proven wrong. Water doesn't catch on fire, so we had empirical evidence that yes, those chemicals were polluting the waters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  those kind hearted rich people were just trying to dillute the flammable chemicals... not put them somewhere to get them out of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the case with other environmental situations that in most instances, are just quite normal such as warmer winters, hurricanes, tornadoes and so forth. Unlike the river, it's simply an unproven theory that we have spent trillions of dollars on, and made nobody happy in the process. In fact, I would be willing to bet that environmentalists are more unhappy now than they were 35 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except Global Warming isn't "unproven".  You only have to look at the retreating glaciers, melting ice caps and buildings collapsing due permafrost disappearing to see that.
> 
> The problem is with you deniers is that you are evidence-impervious. There's no evidence they can present you with that would make you accept more government control. You people would rather condemn future generations to death than accept government control because you done hates the government, Cleetus.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as man made global warming. Even the left wing enviro wackos gave up on this and repackaged their agenda with the term "climate change". And they could not make that stick either because despite the many studies commissioned by those with a true belief that human activity was going to incinerate the planet, unbiased scientific studies prove the Earth's climactic cycles are in a constant state of flux.
The bottom line is this entire climate thing is nothing more than a political agenda.


----------



## LoneLaugher

thereisnospoon said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the right spend so much time trying to tell the left what the left thinks?
> 
> 
> 
> We no longer pay any attention to what your side says. That's useless.
> We do however pay close attention to what you do..
> And at that point your side is so busted.
Click to expand...


Was that deep or something? What you do is spend all of your time trying to convince yourself that you've been right about anything in the last 20 years of your life. You do that by creating an image of your opponents...who have been right all along....as being something evil.


----------



## thereisnospoon

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Joe, it's called advertising. We've been using it for many decades now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another point that went right over your pointed head, Cleetus.
Click to expand...

Well, when you create your own reality, you have no right to expect others to live in it.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except Global Warming isn't "unproven". You only have to look at the retreating glaciers, melting ice caps and buildings collapsing due permafrost disappearing to see that.
> 
> The problem is with you deniers is that you are evidence-impervious. There's no evidence they can present you with that would make you accept more government control. You people would rather condemn future generations to death than accept government control because you done hates the government, Cleetus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right Cleetus, it's what we have been telling you on the left for years: the earth, climate and temperature do change.  That's the way God made this place.  The climate has been changing since he put the earth here, and it will continue to change long after we are gone.  How many factories and SUV"s did we have at the beginning of the ice age meltdown?
> 
> Energy is power, and the more power you give the government, the more they will abuse it as history shows.  But you on the left believe that people are too stupid to know what's good for them.  Government should make all your decisions for you.
Click to expand...

You mentioned god.. Now Joe is REALLLLLLY gonna be mad. He may lift his leg and piss on your shoes.


----------



## thereisnospoon

LoneLaugher said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the right spend so much time trying to tell the left what the left thinks?
> 
> 
> 
> We no longer pay any attention to what your side says. That's useless.
> We do however pay close attention to what you do..
> And at that point your side is so busted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that deep or something? What you do is spend all of your time trying to convince yourself that you've been right about anything in the last 20 years of your life. You do that by creating an image of your opponents...who have been right all along....as being something evil.
Click to expand...

Stop making excuses.


----------



## LoneLaugher

thereisnospoon said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the right spend so much time trying to tell the left what the left thinks?
> 
> 
> 
> We no longer pay any attention to what your side says. That's useless.
> We do however pay close attention to what you do..
> And at that point your side is so busted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that deep or something? What you do is spend all of your time trying to convince yourself that you've been right about anything in the last 20 years of your life. You do that by creating an image of your opponents...who have been right all along....as being something evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop making excuses.
Click to expand...


For what? You aren't making sense.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Skull Pilot said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey
> 
> Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That plane is impractical for anything but a science project
Click to expand...

That aircraft is a Sierra Club member's wet dream


----------



## thereisnospoon

davecmarino said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are.  But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable.  And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the design. Windmills are inherently simple. The only part that is sophisticated is the electric generator that is spun by the blades. Electric generators is just a single axel with spun copper and magnets. The generator should last a very long time if it was a commercial quality unit as most are even sealed units that don't require the maintenance of any lubricating systems until you get into the largest units.
> 
> The blades are normally aluminum and the base is stainless steel.
> 
> Windpower is viable in areas with a high enough constant wind profile as an additional energy source. This is slightly over 1/2 of the United States.
Click to expand...

Forget the wind device for a moment and consider the delivery of the power to the user.
The materials and infrastructure required for delivery and use are expensive and in many cases impractical.


----------



## thereisnospoon

there4eyeM said:


> What is truly surprising is the vehemence with which some people militate against progress in alternative energy fields and for the fatal status quo. Defending 'big oil' as if those companies were benefactors doing us a favor, for example, is wondrous strange.


Now please point out in this thread where anyone has defended big oil.


----------



## washamericom

Silhouette said:


> And the most inexpensive fuel of all?  Concentrated solar thermal radiation, near-source, boiling water to run turbines.  Just like all other power companies do using dirty and dangerous (and far more expensive) fuels to do...
> 
> Next least expensive "allowing more freedom"?  Geothermal steam to run turbines.


that would cool down the earth.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Ray From Cleveland said:


> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are.  But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable.  And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the design. Windmills are inherently simple. The only part that is sophisticated is the electric generator that is spun by the blades. Electric generators is just a single axel with spun copper and magnets. The generator should last a very long time if it was a commercial quality unit as most are even sealed units that don't require the maintenance of any lubricating systems until you get into the largest units.
> 
> The blades are normally aluminum and the base is stainless steel.
> 
> Windpower is viable in areas with a high enough constant wind profile as an additional energy source. This is slightly over 1/2 of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to find many places windier than Cleveland.  Once I read where Cleveland was windier than the windy city of Chicago technically.
> 
> They really wanted to build that windmill on Lake Erie but backed off of the idea because of cost.  Even looking at the most extreme, if there was some savings to be had, it would be  so little that it wouldn't worth the trouble.
> 
> If it were a real investment, hell, I would put one in my backyard.  I have enough room for it and if it really saved me money, I wouldn't mind trimming the grass around the thing.
Click to expand...

Actually Chicago is not in the top ten windiest cities in the US. 
The average daily wind velocity in Chicago is 9.9 mph. That's outside the top 5 in Illinois.


----------



## hazlnut

Clementine said:


> Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?
> 
> 
> 
> "The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.
> 
> While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:
> 
> The Solar Impulse 2 features *17,000 solar cells* crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.
> 
> By contrast, a *Boeing 747-400* running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.
> 
> Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about *15 to 30 times as much energy* as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb




You forgot to add in the cost of trillions of dollars in insurance claims from extreme climate events.

Idiot.

Nothing "affordable about dirty energy.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in using your illustration, tell me how is this solar farm supposed to get me to work? How is supposed to power large vehicles such as trains, ships and trucks to get goods to market?
> .
> Have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biodiesel.  Trains running on electric, generated by solar thermal hybrid power plants, or diesel generators on board.  You're aware of the fact that they're growing an algae that can be cut into existing diesel gotten from petroleum?  The more they progress with that technology, the less we're going to have to rely on petroleum for diesel.
> 
> Between solar thermal hybrid turbines, geothermal turbines and biodiesel, we've got it sewn up in the bag.  Keep your damn profits.  We just want a cleaner earth and less bullshit in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Uhh....There are no diesel powered locomotives. The power that turns the drive wheels is electrical.
The diesel burned by a locomotive is use to power on board generators that use electricity to make the locomotive go. 
Locomotives powered in this manner are among the most fuel efficient fossil fuel burning vehicles.


----------



## thereisnospoon

hazlnut said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?
> 
> 
> 
> "The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.
> 
> While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:
> 
> The Solar Impulse 2 features *17,000 solar cells* crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.
> 
> By contrast, a *Boeing 747-400* running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.
> 
> Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about *15 to 30 times as much energy* as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to add in the cost of trillions of dollars in insurance claims from extreme climate events.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Nothing "affordable about dirty energy.
Click to expand...

Yep...Can't exclude those ambulance chasers now, can we?


----------



## washamericom

Jarlaxle said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> num_nut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> how close are we to building solar collector panels into the bodies of cars that sit in the sun all day? florida the west etc. it seems like a partial solution to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can do it now.  You could charge a battery in the car.  File papers, pay fees, work with UL CSA EPA LRB, hiere lawyers accountants taxman, rent buildings, test it out, try to sell it in AZ NV.........see what you can come up with.   Got deep pockets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's like that movie tucker. but one thing i am doing is turning my old 528 into an electric vehicle. everything related to combustion comes out, so the weight of the motor trans exhaust etc is replaced by 12 v deep cycle batteries. it's a big golf cart. the design objective is to get to town ten miles away and home. doesn't have to go over forty.
> 
> electric motors will provide propulsion, there is plenty of torque and will have polarity reverse.
> 
> i'm in vermont not the sunniest, so if it works here, it can make it anywhere, ideally in a sunny state.
> 
> i'm after negative entropy... lol  but i'll start with this.
> 
> i think it will work, a trunk and engine compartment will house the golf cart batteries.
> 
> as described, this concept would never make it past the dot or the big three or five.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be careful...batteries are heavy, so watch your axle weights!
Click to expand...

will do, i'll try to spread them withing the length of the car, don't know how many batteries it will take. 

time Acceleration) is energy. i have a friend in florida that has the tesla sports car, he mentioned draining the lithium battery storage, in about ten stoplights with jack rabbit starts. they are ultimately fast. so how you drive it is a big factor.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in using your illustration, tell me how is this solar farm supposed to get me to work? How is supposed to power large vehicles such as trains, ships and trucks to get goods to market?
> .
> Have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biodiesel.  Trains running on electric, generated by solar thermal hybrid power plants, or diesel generators on board.  You're aware of the fact that they're growing an algae that can be cut into existing diesel gotten from petroleum?  The more they progress with that technology, the less we're going to have to rely on petroleum for diesel.
> 
> Between solar thermal hybrid turbines, geothermal turbines and biodiesel, we've got it sewn up in the bag.  Keep your damn profits.  We just want a cleaner earth and less bullshit in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Bio-diesel is only useful in temperate climates.  When exposed to cold temperatures, bio diesel coagulates. Leaving the vehicle useless.


----------



## washamericom

thereisnospoon said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 100 years from now, nobody will be using fossil fuel; not because of government mandate (hopefully), but because of technology developed by the private sector.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Magic Pixie Dust from our great Capitalist Overlords...
> 
> They've resisted clean energy kicking and screaming the whole way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Myth. Clean energy. It doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

i think it does with the sun, but we need more technology.


----------



## whitehall

Regardless of the rhetoric of a president who vows to reduce the U.S. to a 3rd world country (like his father's home country) by "weaning the U.S. off oil dependence" there is no substitute for fossil fuel at this time in history. Hypocrite lefties drool over rich Saudi princes but they forget that Saudi Arabia is rich because they drill for fossil fuel. Low information lefties are so stupid that they think they are being kind to the environment when they promote the use of solar energy equipment and gigantic batteries made from stuff so toxic that they have to make it in China. The presumed democrat candidate vows to put coal miners and the coal industry out of work but the hypocrite left doesn't seem to care about the United Mine Workers union as much as any other labor unions. It's hard to get inside the minds of left wingers because they operate on emotion and thrive on low information but it seems that generations of hypocrite lefties have been taught to blame the greatest Country in the world, where they live in peace and relative comfort, for all the problems in the rest of the world. It's ironic that hypocrite lefties refer to the right wing as "anti intellectual" while they rely on the doctrine of man made global warming developed by an angry defeated pervert politician with no background in science.


----------



## washamericom

thereisnospoon said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might. They spend a hell of a lot of time and money trying to scare the hell out of people.
> 
> The real problem is that nobody gets a bill from the government for environmental costs. It's intrinsic in all the products we buy. You never see it, but it's there.
> 
> DumBama forced restaurants to post calorie count on all their items. I say we should do the same with our products. Have Trump and the Republicans write a law that all products have to contain their environmental costs on the package.
> 
> Perhaps if people knew what they were actually paying out of their pockets for these costs, there wouldn't be so much support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you live in a city where the River used to catch on fire because it was so fucking polluted.
> 
> Maybe you should think about the cost of NOT doing the environmental things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was different Joe.  Putting chemicals in the river was experimental as the theory was the water would dilute the chemicals so much that they wouldn't be traceable.  When the river caught fire, the theory was proven wrong.   Water doesn't catch on fire, so we had empirical evidence that yes, those chemicals were polluting the waters.
> 
> That's not the case with other environmental situations that in most instances, are just quite normal such as warmer winters, hurricanes, tornadoes and so forth.  Unlike the river, it's simply an unproven theory that we have spent trillions of dollars on, and made nobody happy in the process.  In fact, I would be willing to bet that environmentalists are more unhappy now than they were 35 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the enviro wackos are unhappy. They are liberals. And on planet liberal, if one is not miserable or complaining, something is wrong.
Click to expand...

climate change and the ipcc are wrong.


----------



## washamericom

thereisnospoon said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are.  But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable.  And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the design. Windmills are inherently simple. The only part that is sophisticated is the electric generator that is spun by the blades. Electric generators is just a single axel with spun copper and magnets. The generator should last a very long time if it was a commercial quality unit as most are even sealed units that don't require the maintenance of any lubricating systems until you get into the largest units.
> 
> The blades are normally aluminum and the base is stainless steel.
> 
> Windpower is viable in areas with a high enough constant wind profile as an additional energy source. This is slightly over 1/2 of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to find many places windier than Cleveland.  Once I read where Cleveland was windier than the windy city of Chicago technically.
> 
> They really wanted to build that windmill on Lake Erie but backed off of the idea because of cost.  Even looking at the most extreme, if there was some savings to be had, it would be  so little that it wouldn't worth the trouble.
> 
> If it were a real investment, hell, I would put one in my backyard.  I have enough room for it and if it really saved me money, I wouldn't mind trimming the grass around the thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Chicago is not in the top ten windiest cities in the US.
> The average daily wind velocity in Chicago is 9.9 mph. That's outside the top 5 in Illinois.
Click to expand...

and it wasn't named for it's climate, windy came from politics... ironically.
but it is windy off the lake like that. just wait till they unionize the weather.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

thereisnospoon said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are.  But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable.  And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the design. Windmills are inherently simple. The only part that is sophisticated is the electric generator that is spun by the blades. Electric generators is just a single axel with spun copper and magnets. The generator should last a very long time if it was a commercial quality unit as most are even sealed units that don't require the maintenance of any lubricating systems until you get into the largest units.
> 
> The blades are normally aluminum and the base is stainless steel.
> 
> Windpower is viable in areas with a high enough constant wind profile as an additional energy source. This is slightly over 1/2 of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not going to find many places windier than Cleveland.  Once I read where Cleveland was windier than the windy city of Chicago technically.
> 
> They really wanted to build that windmill on Lake Erie but backed off of the idea because of cost.  Even looking at the most extreme, if there was some savings to be had, it would be  so little that it wouldn't worth the trouble.
> 
> If it were a real investment, hell, I would put one in my backyard.  I have enough room for it and if it really saved me money, I wouldn't mind trimming the grass around the thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually Chicago is not in the top ten windiest cities in the US.
> The average daily wind velocity in Chicago is 9.9 mph. That's outside the top 5 in Illinois.
Click to expand...


I guess they just call it the windy city because like Cleveland, it's windy all the damn time:  

*City* *MPH* *KPH*
Boston, Massachusetts 12.3 19.8
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 12.2 19.6
Buffalo, New York 11.8 19.0
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 11.5 18.5
Dallas, Texas 10.7 17.2
Kansas City, Missouri 10.6 17.1
San Francisco, California 10.6 17.1
Cleveland, Ohio 10.5 16.9
Minneapolis, Minnesota 10.5 16.9
Virginia Beach, Virginia 10.5 16.9
Providence, Rhode Island 10.4 16.7
Chicago, Illinois 10.3 16.6
Detroit, Michigan 10.2 16.4

Windiest City in America - Current Results


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

thereisnospoon said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might. They spend a hell of a lot of time and money trying to scare the hell out of people.
> 
> The real problem is that nobody gets a bill from the government for environmental costs. It's intrinsic in all the products we buy. You never see it, but it's there.
> 
> DumBama forced restaurants to post calorie count on all their items. I say we should do the same with our products. Have Trump and the Republicans write a law that all products have to contain their environmental costs on the package.
> 
> Perhaps if people knew what they were actually paying out of their pockets for these costs, there wouldn't be so much support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you live in a city where the River used to catch on fire because it was so fucking polluted.
> 
> Maybe you should think about the cost of NOT doing the environmental things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was different Joe.  Putting chemicals in the river was experimental as the theory was the water would dilute the chemicals so much that they wouldn't be traceable.  When the river caught fire, the theory was proven wrong.   Water doesn't catch on fire, so we had empirical evidence that yes, those chemicals were polluting the waters.
> 
> That's not the case with other environmental situations that in most instances, are just quite normal such as warmer winters, hurricanes, tornadoes and so forth.  Unlike the river, it's simply an unproven theory that we have spent trillions of dollars on, and made nobody happy in the process.  In fact, I would be willing to bet that environmentalists are more unhappy now than they were 35 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the enviro wackos are unhappy. They are liberals. And on planet liberal, if one is not miserable or complaining, something is wrong.
Click to expand...


Or they do whatever it takes to make others miserable.  After all, you really aren't a liberal unless you're ruining somebody else's fun or enjoyment in life.


----------



## mamooth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Because the left doesn't know what they think themselves until somebody tells them.



My, aren't you the proud little authoritarian.

And clearly, it bothers a lot when nobody except your fellow circle-jerkers will pay attention to your authoritarian edicts. No wonder you're always crying so hard about the liberals who stole your girl and had all the fun and beat you up on the playground.

Anyways, the main conclusion to be drawn from this thread is how a significant number of hardcore conservatives are delusional authoritarians.



> About ten years ago when I was watching the news, some local company invented an engine that ran on water. Two days later the news followed up. They said to stop e-mailing the company because it was purely experimental. They couldn't sell the engine because water creates water vapor which is considered the most dangerous gas. They would need EPA approval which they couldn't get in a million years.



The secondary conclusion is that those conservatives are constantly falling prey to the craziest conspiracy theories out there, due to their complete inability to use reason. They run entirely on emotion, so if a cult leader appeals to their emotions, they can get those conservatives to believe almost anything, no matter how stupid it is.

If you really want to get those conservatives mad, just point to the economic success of renewable energy. That's because they see the two things they hate most succeeding, capitalism and renewable energy, and it drives them over the edge.


----------



## mamooth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> They really wanted to build that windmill on Lake Erie but backed off of the idea because of cost.  Even looking at the most extreme, if there was some savings to be had, it would be  so little that it wouldn't worth the trouble.



Offshore Wind - LEEDCo - Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation  - Cleveland OH

If you read up on the upcoming Lake Erie project, you'll find the challenge was in making the foundations ice resistant. Unlike as with ocean locations that mount wind turbines, the Great Lakes freeze.


----------



## mamooth

washamericom said:


> how close are we to building solar collector panels into the bodies of cars that sit in the sun all day? florida the west etc. it seems like a partial solution to me.



It's very inefficient. Because most surfaces on the car are not angled towards the sun, you'd be catching very little sunlight, especially at your northern latitude. It would also be adding extra weight to the vehicle, decreasing efficiency further.

The smarter solution? Build a carport, roof angled towards the sun at the correct angle, and put the solar panels on that roof, the power inverter and battery as well, then park there and charge off that. Or put the panels on the roof of the house or garage, if it's south-facing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

mamooth said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the left doesn't know what they think themselves until somebody tells them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, aren't you the proud little authoritarian.
> 
> And clearly, it bothers a lot when nobody except your fellow circle-jerkers will pay attention to your authoritarian edicts. No wonder you're always crying so hard about the liberals who stole your girl and had all the fun and beat you up on the playground.
> 
> Anyways, the main conclusion to be drawn from this thread is how a significant number of hardcore conservatives are delusional authoritarians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About ten years ago when I was watching the news, some local company invented an engine that ran on water. Two days later the news followed up. They said to stop e-mailing the company because it was purely experimental. They couldn't sell the engine because water creates water vapor which is considered the most dangerous gas. They would need EPA approval which they couldn't get in a million years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The secondary conclusion is that those conservatives are constantly falling prey to the craziest conspiracy theories out there, due to their complete inability to use reason. They run entirely on emotion, so if a cult leader appeals to their emotions, they can get those conservatives to believe almost anything, no matter how stupid it is.
> 
> If you really want to get those conservatives mad, just point to the economic success of renewable energy. That's because they see the two things they hate most succeeding, capitalism and renewable energy, and it drives them over the edge.
Click to expand...




mamooth said:


> My, aren't you the proud little authoritarian.
> 
> And clearly, it bothers a lot when nobody except your fellow circle-jerkers will pay attention to your authoritarian edicts. No wonder you're always crying so hard about the liberals who stole your girl and had all the fun and beat you up on the playground.
> 
> Anyways, the main conclusion to be drawn from this thread is how a significant number of hardcore conservatives are delusional authoritarians.



Yes that is true.  Now you are forced to buy healthcare insurance against your will by the federal government and states are forced to accept gay marriage agains their will.  We won't even get into the military thing.

But yes, liberals are very violent people.  That's why we conservatives carry our guns with us and liberals want to disarm the public.  





mamooth said:


> The secondary conclusion is that those conservatives are constantly falling prey to the craziest conspiracy theories out there, due to their complete inability to use reason. They run entirely on emotion, so if a cult leader appeals to their emotions, they can get those conservatives to believe almost anything, no matter how stupid it is.
> 
> If you really want to get those conservatives mad, just point to the economic success of renewable energy. That's because they see the two things they hate most succeeding, capitalism and renewable energy, and it drives them over the edge.



Economic success of renewable energy?  What economic success?  Government has to subsidize renewable energy in order to get anybody interested in it.  Renewable energy is less reliable and more expensive.  Who wants that other than a tree hugging liberal?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

mamooth said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> They really wanted to build that windmill on Lake Erie but backed off of the idea because of cost.  Even looking at the most extreme, if there was some savings to be had, it would be  so little that it wouldn't worth the trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Offshore Wind - LEEDCo - Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation  - Cleveland OH
> 
> If you read up on the upcoming Lake Erie project, you'll find the challenge was in making the foundations ice resistant. Unlike as with ocean locations that mount wind turbines, the Great Lakes freeze.
Click to expand...


That's one of the problems, yes, but again, not economical unless the government steps in: 

_*The Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation (LEEDCo) got a boost this past week when windmill developer Fred Olsen Renewables, headquartered in Oslo, Norway — previously slated to build the six demonstration offshore windmill units off of Cleveland’s shoreline — pledged their investment in the project. In May, the project took a hit when the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) notified LEEDCo that the nearly $47 million in grant money that they applied for was awarded elsewhere.

As the trapped water is pumped out, it forms a secure vacuum seal. In the meantime, none of the three other East Coast locations that beat out LEEDCo for the grants were able to secure electrical power purchase agreements because of projected kilowatt hour prices or construction bid estimates that came in grossly over budget. So, now LEEDCo is in line to claim over $40 million of these funds next year. If wind power is such a great idea, electric power companies would be tripping over themselves to invest in it, but have thus far only reluctantly bought into it because of legislative mandates. Taxpayers are the biggest investors to date, with development and research grants a euphemism for our tax money, are expected to exceed $50 million.*_

Lake Erie windmills a good thing?


----------



## mamooth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes that is true.  Now you are forced to buy healthcare insurance against your will by the federal government and states are forced to accept gay marriage agains their will.



Yeah, and we're forced to accept interracial marriage as well. Damn that government!

We won't even get into the military thing.

Let's do. One hallmark of authoritarianism is mindless glorify of the the military and police, which we also see in conservatives.



> But yes, liberals are very violent people.  That's why we conservatives carry our guns with us and liberals want to disarm the public.



As you're the ones carrying guns and constantly making veiled threats, you would appear to be the violent one. I suggest you stop doing so publicly, as if there's ever an incident, the DA will be looking at a history of what you've said when determining your intent.



> Economic success of renewable energy?  What economic success?  Government has to subsidize renewable energy in order to get anybody interested in it.  Renewable energy is less reliable and more expensive.  Who wants that other than a tree hugging liberal?



You understand how you can't pass off your cult nonsense to anyone outside of your cult, right?

Probably not. You're simply too deeply embedded in your cult's anti-reality bubble, and the real world can't penetrate. You actually believe all the cult dogma that you spout.


----------



## mamooth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's one of the problems, yes, but again, not economical unless the government steps in



On Lake Erie, maybe. Doing great in other parts of Ohio, on land.

I notice you're not bringing that up. Instead, you cherrypick the most difficult spot to build on, Lake Erie, as if it were typical.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

mamooth said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is true.  Now you are forced to buy healthcare insurance against your will by the federal government and states are forced to accept gay marriage agains their will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and we're forced to accept interracial marriage as well. Damn that government!
> 
> We won't even get into the military thing.
> 
> Let's do. One hallmark of authoritarianism is mindless glorify of the the military and police, which we also see in conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yes, liberals are very violent people.  That's why we conservatives carry our guns with us and liberals want to disarm the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you're the ones carrying guns and constantly making veiled threats, you would appear to be the violent one. I suggest you stop doing so publicly, as if there's ever an incident, the DA will be looking at a history of what you've said when determining your intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Economic success of renewable energy?  What economic success?  Government has to subsidize renewable energy in order to get anybody interested in it.  Renewable energy is less reliable and more expensive.  Who wants that other than a tree hugging liberal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You understand how you can't pass off your cult nonsense to anyone outside of your cult, right?
> 
> Probably not. You're simply too deeply embedded in your cult's anti-reality bubble, and the real world can't penetrate. You actually believe all the cult dogma that you spout.
Click to expand...




mamooth said:


> Yeah, and we're forced to accept interracial marriage as well. Damn that government!
> 
> We won't even get into the military thing.
> 
> Let's do. One hallmark of authoritarianism is mindless glorify of the the military and police, which we also see in conservatives.



Yes you do see that.  Conservatives side with good and liberals always side with evil.  So of course we glorify the good just like you glorify the evil.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  



mamooth said:


> As you're the ones carrying guns and constantly making veiled threats, you would appear to be the violent one. I suggest you stop doing so publicly, as if there's ever an incident, the DA will be looking at a history of what you've said when determining your intent.



We armed citizens are investigated and electronically fingerprinted before we are issued a license.  And no, a DA can't use a blog to determine anything.  All the DA does is determine if the law was followed or not in a shooting.  It doesn't matter what I say, it matters what I did and what an investigation concludes. 

And I don't see anywhere in any of my posts where I threatened one member here.  I'm not a violent person just because I'm armed in public.  The government has determined the same thing.  I have a CCW, a CDL, and even a TSA certification.  I've been checked out by every government agency in the book.  



mamooth said:


> You understand how you can't pass off your cult nonsense to anyone outside of your cult, right?
> 
> Probably not. You're simply too deeply embedded in your cult's anti-reality bubble, and the real world can't penetrate. You actually believe all the cult dogma that you spout.



Without a doubt I believe it.  Capitalism is why.  Don't you think that if there was a product that everybody wanted, the private sector would have been involved long before government?


----------



## mamooth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes you do see that. Conservatives side with good and liberals always side with evil.



Nice religion you got there.

Alas, discussion with religious fanatics is pointless.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in using your illustration, tell me how is this solar farm supposed to get me to work? How is supposed to power large vehicles such as trains, ships and trucks to get goods to market?
> .
> Have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biodiesel.  Trains running on electric, generated by solar thermal hybrid power plants, or diesel generators on board.  You're aware of the fact that they're growing an algae that can be cut into existing diesel gotten from petroleum?  The more they progress with that technology, the less we're going to have to rely on petroleum for diesel.
> 
> Between solar thermal hybrid turbines, geothermal turbines and biodiesel, we've got it sewn up in the bag.  Keep your damn profits.  We just want a cleaner earth and less bullshit in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

I am aware of many theories and experiments. Most of the developing technology is decades off from viability


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Right Cleetus, it's what we have been telling you on the left for years: the earth, climate and temperature do change. That's the way God made this place.



1) There is no God.
2) The changes of the last few decades is more radical than anything we've seen before. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> The climate has been changing since he put the earth here, and it will continue to change long after we are gone. How many factories and SUV"s did we have at the beginning of the ice age meltdown?



Okay, Dun, der, Cleetus, the ice age meltdown happened over a period of thousands of years, not mere decades.  In short, nature had a change to adapt to the changes through the process of natural selection. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Energy is power, and the more power you give the government, the more they will abuse it as history shows. But you on the left believe that people are too stupid to know what's good for them. Government should make all your decisions for you.



Let's see now, you are terrified of the power being in the hands of a government that stands for election every four years, but you have no problem with it being in the hands of unelected rich people who run big corporations?  

Once again, everyone- Battered Wife Conservatism fully on display.


----------



## JoeB131

thereisnospoon said:


> The bottom line is that liberals despise a free society. A mobile society is just that. The proof of this is in the left wing agenda. Liberals despise the concept of suburbs, single family homes, automobiles and private property. Left wingers believe we should all be crammed into urban centers and left to fend for ourselves while they the ruling elite class get to live in far flung gated communities complete with private armed security teams and attack dogs.
> A reminder of this



How come every time you whackadoodles talk about "Freedom", it usually means the ability of people with money to abuse those of us with less money? 

I'm not sure where liberals came out against the "Single Family Home", ever?  In fact, home ownership has always been something that the government has promoted, through the FHA, Veteran's Adminstration and all that other "Socialist" nonsense you guys just, hate, hate, hate.


----------



## JoeB131

thereisnospoon said:


> My vision of a liberal elitist is a person who alone charters a 10 passenger private jet to fly to a conference on alternative energy.
> Or we can look at the biggest energy hypocrite of all. Al Gore. He spouts off about global warming cursing use of fossil fuels. Meanwhile he resides in a home that consumes the equivalent of 20 conventional homes.



Yes, keep playing the Al Gore card.  "That dang, der gummit ain't gonna make me buy a fuel efficient car, if Al Gore done got him a private jet." 

Okay, Cleetus, I hate to break this to you... Al Gore's jet by itself does't have that much of an impact. He isn't flying it every single day.  Millions of gas hog SUV's do.


----------



## JoeB131

thereisnospoon said:


> Myth. Clean energy. It doesn't exist.



The oil companies told you so, right?


----------



## washamericom

mamooth said:


> washamericom said:
> 
> 
> 
> how close are we to building solar collector panels into the bodies of cars that sit in the sun all day? florida the west etc. it seems like a partial solution to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's very inefficient. Because most surfaces on the car are not angled towards the sun, you'd be catching very little sunlight, especially at your northern latitude. It would also be adding extra weight to the vehicle, decreasing efficiency further.
> 
> The smarter solution? Build a carport, roof angled towards the sun at the correct angle, and put the solar panels on that roof, the power inverter and battery as well, then park there and charge off that. Or put the panels on the roof of the house or garage, if it's south-facing.
Click to expand...

i like it... but i think a combination of both. have solar panels become more efficient per square inch or foot ? how important is direct angling ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right Cleetus, it's what we have been telling you on the left for years: the earth, climate and temperature do change. That's the way God made this place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There is no God.
> 2) The changes of the last few decades is more radical than anything we've seen before.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The climate has been changing since he put the earth here, and it will continue to change long after we are gone. How many factories and SUV"s did we have at the beginning of the ice age meltdown?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, Dun, der, Cleetus, the ice age meltdown happened over a period of thousands of years, not mere decades.  In short, nature had a change to adapt to the changes through the process of natural selection.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Energy is power, and the more power you give the government, the more they will abuse it as history shows. But you on the left believe that people are too stupid to know what's good for them. Government should make all your decisions for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see now, you are terrified of the power being in the hands of a government that stands for election every four years, but you have no problem with it being in the hands of unelected rich people who run big corporations?
> 
> Once again, everyone- Battered Wife Conservatism fully on display.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> Let's see now, you are terrified of the power being in the hands of a government that stands for election every four years, but you have no problem with it being in the hands of unelected rich people who run big corporations?
> 
> Once again, everyone- Battered Wife Conservatism fully on display.



Where is all this power big corporations have?  Big corporations don't levy taxes against me.  Big corporations don't make laws against me.  Big corporations didn't take my healthcare insurance away from me.  If big corporations have so much power, they are sure doing a hell of a job hiding that from us.  They pay the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.  



JoeB131 said:


> Okay, Dun, der, Cleetus, the ice age meltdown happened over a period of thousands of years, not mere decades. In short, nature had a change to adapt to the changes through the process of natural selection.



If climate never changed until man changed came around, it doesn't mater if it was a couple thousand years a two hundred thousand years.  



JoeB131 said:


> 1) There is no God.
> 2) The changes of the last few decades is more radical than anything we've seen before.



And you know that how, by the couple hundreds of years we've been keeping records?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Solar and wind is more affordable over the long term then coal. Why does the right attack renewables?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Matthew said:


> Solar and wind is more affordable over the long term then coal. Why does the right attack renewables?



We don't, only when it's suggested it should be forced on us. 

You want to use alternative energy, fine with us.  Just don't tell us what we should or must use.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If climate never changed until man changed came around, it doesn't mater if it was a couple thousand years a two hundred thousand years.



Jesus Fucking Christ, talking science with you knuckleheads is a chore. Okay, yes, it makes ALL the difference if the temperature changes over time, or changes very quickly, in that life forms can't adapt. Natural selection can't do it's work.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Where is all this power big corporations have? Big corporations don't levy taxes against me. Big corporations don't make laws against me. Big corporations didn't take my healthcare insurance away from me. If big corporations have so much power, they are sure doing a hell of a job hiding that from us. They pay the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.



Guy, the government didn't take your healthcare away from you, your boss did. 

And our Corporate Tax rate is one of the lowest when adjusted for the tax code. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> And you know that how, by the couple hundreds of years we've been keeping records?



Ice cores, the fossil record, and so on. 

Now, there have been times when climate really did change radically, such as the KT Extinction event, when temperatures dropped rapidly after an asteroid hit the earth.  75% of all animal and plant species died out, probably within a year.


----------



## Andylusion

Matthew said:


> Solar and wind is more affordable over the long term then coal. Why does the right attack renewables?


Because you lie.   When you have to lie continuously in order to defend renewables, then obviously they are not a good idea.

When you have to tax poor people, to give subsidies to renewables, in order to make them competitive, then obviously it's not a good idea.

Let me put it another way....

If you remove all subsidies, would they make a competitive product?  And the answer is... no.  Not even close.

You doubt that?
UK solar power installations plummet after government cuts

Installation of solar green-energy panels, fell like a rock, by nearly 74%, when the government cut the subsidies.

In other words, without subsidies, there would be no solar panel market at all.

Which begs the question, how many other green-energy markets wouldn't exist without direct government subsidies.

And contrary to left-wing mythology, we don't subsidies oil, coal, or gas, or nuclear, by even a faction as much as we subsidizes green energy crap.

If Green energy was a viable replacement, then you wouldn't need an extra penny, taxed from the poor, to pay some rich guy, to make your power.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If climate never changed until man changed came around, it doesn't mater if it was a couple thousand years a two hundred thousand years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Fucking Christ, talking science with you knuckleheads is a chore. Okay, yes, it makes ALL the difference if the temperature changes over time, or changes very quickly, in that life forms can't adapt. Natural selection can't do it's work.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is all this power big corporations have? Big corporations don't levy taxes against me. Big corporations don't make laws against me. Big corporations didn't take my healthcare insurance away from me. If big corporations have so much power, they are sure doing a hell of a job hiding that from us. They pay the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, the government didn't take your healthcare away from you, your boss did.
> 
> And our Corporate Tax rate is one of the lowest when adjusted for the tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know that how, by the couple hundreds of years we've been keeping records?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ice cores, the fossil record, and so on.
> 
> Now, there have been times when climate really did change radically, such as the KT Extinction event, when temperatures dropped rapidly after an asteroid hit the earth.  75% of all animal and plant species died out, probably within a year.
Click to expand...


No, my boss did not take my health care away from me.  Obama care did.  My boss had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If climate never changed until man changed came around, it doesn't mater if it was a couple thousand years a two hundred thousand years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Fucking Christ, talking science with you knuckleheads is a chore. Okay, yes, it makes ALL the difference if the temperature changes over time, or changes very quickly, in that life forms can't adapt. Natural selection can't do it's work.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is all this power big corporations have? Big corporations don't levy taxes against me. Big corporations don't make laws against me. Big corporations didn't take my healthcare insurance away from me. If big corporations have so much power, they are sure doing a hell of a job hiding that from us. They pay the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, the government didn't take your healthcare away from you, your boss did.
> 
> And our Corporate Tax rate is one of the lowest when adjusted for the tax code.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know that how, by the couple hundreds of years we've been keeping records?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ice cores, the fossil record, and so on.
> 
> Now, there have been times when climate really did change radically, such as the KT Extinction event, when temperatures dropped rapidly after an asteroid hit the earth.  75% of all animal and plant species died out, probably within a year.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> Ice cores, the fossil record, and so on.
> 
> Now, there have been times when climate really did change radically, such as the KT Extinction event, when temperatures dropped rapidly after an asteroid hit the earth. 75% of all animal and plant species died out, probably within a year.



Obviously you have a problem distinguishing between theory and fact.

As I stated, the climate has been changing since this earth was put here by God.  And if we stopped every motor vehicle......every factory......every energy source, the climate will continue to change.

On that note, are you willing to use public transportation everywhere you go?  Are you willing to spend the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost you to use solar panels on your roof and erect a windmill in your yard?  Are you willing to keep your thermostat set at 58 degrees in the winter and 75 degrees in the summer?  How many of these things do you do now?

I bet not one.  I bet you don't even participate in recycling.  I bet that you don't even own a bicycle yet alone ride one.



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, the government didn't take your healthcare away from you, your boss did.
> 
> And our Corporate Tax rate is one of the lowest when adjusted for the tax code.



Of course it is.  That's why they are leaving this country by the droves.  Would you like me to post my FactCheck article that disagrees with your opinion? 



JoeB131 said:


> Jesus Fucking Christ, talking science with you knuckleheads is a chore. Okay, yes, it makes ALL the difference if the temperature changes over time, or changes very quickly, in that life forms can't adapt. Natural selection can't do it's work.



So what life form do we have now that's not adapting?


----------



## Skull Pilot

thereisnospoon said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in using your illustration, tell me how is this solar farm supposed to get me to work? How is supposed to power large vehicles such as trains, ships and trucks to get goods to market?
> .
> Have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biodiesel.  Trains running on electric, generated by solar thermal hybrid power plants, or diesel generators on board.  You're aware of the fact that they're growing an algae that can be cut into existing diesel gotten from petroleum?  The more they progress with that technology, the less we're going to have to rely on petroleum for diesel.
> 
> Between solar thermal hybrid turbines, geothermal turbines and biodiesel, we've got it sewn up in the bag.  Keep your damn profits.  We just want a cleaner earth and less bullshit in the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bio-diesel is only useful in temperate climates.  When exposed to cold temperatures, bio diesel coagulates. Leaving the vehicle useless.
Click to expand...


The easy fix for bio diesel gelling in winter is to have 2 tanks.  In cold weather start up on standard diesel and use the heat from the engine to warm up the bio diesel


----------



## jon_berzerk

davecmarino said:


> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




yes 

when it is not cooking the local wildlife 

it is setting itself on fire 

Errant concentrated sunbeam starts fire at solar thermal plant in the desert


----------



## Skull Pilot

No matter how you slice it a windmill only produces less that 30% of its rated capacity.  That number has been proven by real life performance.
Solar only works half the time and that's fine but be honest about it.

While I think large wind farms are a complete waste of money and not to mention a blight on the land, I think solar is a good option but not the large solar farms the left seems to want.  IMO solar is a great point of use option that can be tied into the local grids kind of like a trickle charger so it doesn't have to provide base line power loads but instead supplements power production.

We have hundreds of thousands of acres of unused south and southwest facing roof tops in this country.  It seems to me it would make more sense and be infinitely more affordable to use all that acreage for the installation of point of use panel arrays and tie them all to the grid


----------



## elektra

There is no such thing, as Clean, Green, Sustainable, Renewable energy. Why do they have 4 names for it? Because they are trying different marketing gimmicks to see which one catches on.

Why does the left demonize affordable energy, so that we look to the left to save us. 

Solar and Wind Energy uses more natural resources to build then conventional power sources. The idea is to use more, quicker, to create less. That is the very definition of "wasteful". 

But it does give more money to the Stock Market, to Wall St., to Banks, even to the government. 

$36 Trillion dollars is the price tag to build the utopia. 

But, it destroys the World as has completely failed thus far, where it is manufactured it is a toxic wasteland. Where it is installed it destroys the land by the square mile, 1,000's of square miles. It requires so much land that the land is literally given to corporations. That is public land is given to Solar and Wind power companies. 

And the fact is, Solar and Wind do not replace Oil, they use Oil. We do not use Oil to make electricity, so this idea that Solar and Wind are saving Oil is wrong. The simple fact is that Solar and Wind require Oil to be built and given that Solar and Wind is going to be manufactured forever, Oil use has increased forever.

Why does the Left demonize affordable energy.

Because Energy is power, Energy makes a country strong, and affordable energy improves our standard of living.


----------



## pwjohn

I'm paying 8 cents per kwh around these here parts which is pretty reasonable although by the time they throw in all the bullroar it works out to almost 10 cents per kwh. Still very reasonable. But for some reason I was still getting hammered with huge power bills last winter, approaching   300 bucks a month. That's a lot of money for just one person in a 1200 sqft trailer.And I was setting my stat for 62 during the day, 64 at night. Brrrrrrr

Of course I had some strikes gainst me, like straight cool a/c with electric heat and the trailer part..Lousy insulation.

So, I called the power company and they told me that the pevious tennents power bills were running more than  twice as much, or more,  the previous year as I was running this year. And, they went on to tell me there was nothing I could do about it because I was living in a trailer equipped with an electric heat furnace.

I thought otherwise so I  pulled the panels on my electric furnace and discovered the problem in about the blink of an eye, or so.

A previous malfunction had burned out the heat strips, and sequencers,  which is no big deal really, except the bozo doing the work didn't have a clue what he was doing.

He installed new heat strips, then used contactors instead of sequeners to fire everything up. Including the blower motor. And to top it off,  he overized the heat strips by a lot.  15 kw is what he went in with, when 5 kw, or 7.5 kw is all that was needed.

So the moral to this story; if you think your power bill is to high, look ito it.

And now with summer time rapidly approaching , I noticed my a/c wasn't up to the task. So I'll be looking into that real soon to see whats up.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> No, my boss did not take my health care away from me. Obama care did. My boss had nothing to do with it.



I was talking to Raycist from Cleveland, not you.  His sad story was his poor employer couldn't afford health insurance anymore and put him on ObamaCare, and even though Raycist is an incredibly successful and so much better than those Darkies kind of guy, he apparently can't throw out some resumes and get a better paying job with decent health coverage.  

I'm sure if you retell your sad story, we'd hear something similar, though. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Of course it is. That's why they are leaving this country by the droves. Would you like me to post my FactCheck article that disagrees with your opinion?



They are leaving hte country because they can get cheap-ass third world labor and poor toxic shit in the water supply.  And you want us to be just like those countries. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what life form do we have now that's not adapting?



All the ones that are going extinct, you fucking dumbass. 

What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change

Science. I know it's hard to get your mind around because they don't done talk about Jesus!!!!


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> As I stated, the climate has been changing since this earth was put here by God. And if we stopped every motor vehicle......every factory......every energy source, the climate will continue to change.



There is no God. What there are laws of science.  Like if you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you trap heat and have a runaway greenhouse effect.  

Which is what you have on Venus.  Where they don't believe in Jesus because nothing lives there!  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> On that note, are you willing to use public transportation everywhere you go? Are you willing to spend the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost you to use solar panels on your roof and erect a windmill in your yard? Are you willing to keep your thermostat set at 58 degrees in the winter and 75 degrees in the summer? How many of these things do you do now?
> 
> I bet not one. I bet you don't even participate in recycling. I bet that you don't even own a bicycle yet alone ride one.



They don't have public transportation out where I live. 
I live in a condo so I don't have a yard. 
I do keep the thermostat at 65 in the winter and in the summer, I don't use the AC. 
I have a bike, but i use it for excercise, not transportation

Recycling has nothing to do with energy and in many ways, it actually cost more energy to recycle some things, such as paper.  So that's just a "Feel Good".  

But again, much like wanting to yank Al Gore's Jet, that's all symbolic and not real.  What we NEED to do is have POLICY to achieve goals on a marco-level.  That means more research into renewables. It means mandating fuel efficiency without any bullshit "SUV" exceptions. That means investing more in public transportation. 

and yes, i think there are some not liberal things we need to do. We need to put more into Nuclear Energy, and stop letting the folks in Nevada con us on Yucca Mountain. You took the money to build it, you take the fuel like you promised.


----------



## davecmarino

thereisnospoon said:


> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> There once was a federal tax credit for those who installed solar panels for power generation and heating of homes and or water for use in the home.
> Obama used political fiat to take that away.
Click to expand...



It is still there but there are a lot of stipulations and both the manufacturer and the taxpayer have to jump through the hoops to qualify for the small energy credit. Most smaller manufactures haven't gotten their systems approved as they don't develop the whole system but put together a system from various manufacturers.


----------



## mamooth

washamericom said:


> i like it... but i think a combination of both. have solar panels become more efficient per square inch or foot ?



A little more efficient, but a lot cheaper.



> how important is direct angling ?



Vital. A panel laying flat will lose a percentage of energy roughly equal to your latitude. So if you're at 45N, that's 45%.

The best solar installations have panels that move all day to track the sun across the sky, but that's not realistic for most home installations. This link talks about changing the angle 2 or 4 times a year to maximize efficiency.

Optimum Tilt of Solar Panels


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Recycling has nothing to do with energy and in many ways, it actually cost more energy to recycle some things, such as paper. So that's just a "Feel Good".
> 
> But again, much like wanting to yank Al Gore's Jet, that's all symbolic and not real. What we NEED to do is have POLICY to achieve goals on a marco-level. That means more research into renewables. It means mandating fuel efficiency without any bullshit "SUV" exceptions. That means investing more in public transportation.
> 
> and yes, i think there are some not liberal things we need to do. We need to put more into Nuclear Energy, and stop letting the folks in Nevada con us on Yucca Mountain. You took the money to build it, you take the fuel like you promised.



So in other words force people to use energy and transportation they hate. 

Tree huggers hate nukes as much as they do fossil fuels.  The greatest decrease in our pollution came from fracking and look how they are complaining about that.  Windmills?  Noise pollution and the animal rights kooks get in an uproar over dead birds.  More money for public transportation?  I guess 19 trillion in debt isn't enough for you on the left.  Besides, you just stated that public transportation doesn't work for you, so inflict that problem on others?  Typical lib. 

Feel good is what global warming is all about.  Ethanol creates more pollution than manufacturing gasoline, it ruins engines and has a low MPG rating, but environmentalists didn't care, as long as it meant burning less efficient fuel such as oil products.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my boss did not take my health care away from me. Obama care did. My boss had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to Raycist from Cleveland, not you.  His sad story was his poor employer couldn't afford health insurance anymore and put him on ObamaCare, and even though Raycist is an incredibly successful and so much better than those Darkies kind of guy, he apparently can't throw out some resumes and get a better paying job with decent health coverage.
> 
> I'm sure if you retell your sad story, we'd hear something similar, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. That's why they are leaving this country by the droves. Would you like me to post my FactCheck article that disagrees with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are leaving hte country because they can get cheap-ass third world labor and poor toxic shit in the water supply.  And you want us to be just like those countries.
> 
> Right, and our corporate tax has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Do you know what cities and states do to attract new business?  That's right, they offer tax abatements.  They work too.  The less tax a company has to pay, the more they can invest in their own industries.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what life form do we have now that's not adapting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the ones that are going extinct, you fucking dumbass.
> 
> What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change
> 
> Science. I know it's hard to get your mind around because they don't done talk about Jesus!!!!
Click to expand...


Oh, extinction is that new thing huh?  I know we never had animals go extinct until we came out with cars and trucks.  I wonder how nice it was to live 300 years ago when there was no such thing as hurricanes or tornados either.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my boss did not take my health care away from me. Obama care did. My boss had nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to Raycist from Cleveland, not you.  His sad story was his poor employer couldn't afford health insurance anymore and put him on ObamaCare, and even though Raycist is an incredibly successful and so much better than those Darkies kind of guy, he apparently can't throw out some resumes and get a better paying job with decent health coverage.
> 
> I'm sure if you retell your sad story, we'd hear something similar, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is. That's why they are leaving this country by the droves. Would you like me to post my FactCheck article that disagrees with your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are leaving hte country because they can get cheap-ass third world labor and poor toxic shit in the water supply.  And you want us to be just like those countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what life form do we have now that's not adapting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the ones that are going extinct, you fucking dumbass.
> 
> What Animals Are Likely to Go Extinct First Due to Climate Change
> 
> Science. I know it's hard to get your mind around because they don't done talk about Jesus!!!!
Click to expand...


I don't have a sad sad story.   In 2006, I had a private health insurance policy for $67 a month, that was basic catastrophic coverage.    Due to ObamaCare, those policies are gone.  All gone.     They don't exist.  You can't get one, no matter how much you want it.

Instead, the cheapest policy that I could find was $250 a month.   That's the cheapest, most basic coverage policy you can get.

Of course it's subsidized by $170 by the government, down to $80 a month.   So you are paying for my health care.    Before, I paid for it myself.  Now you are.

When your taxes go up, which they absolutely must....   you can blame yourself for it.  I was more than happy to pay for my own health insurance, without taking a dollar from your taxes.  But you people decided differently.   So I'm going to milk you tax paying idiots for as much as I can.  Your fault.  Not mine.

*They are leaving hte country because they can get cheap-ass third world labor and poor toxic shit in the water supply. And you want us to be just like those countries*.

Not true.   People invest in the US all the time.  But they do so in non-union, non-regulated, non-screwed-over-by-leftwing-idiots parts of the economy.

If you people stopped trying to destroy successful corporations with taxes and regulations, we'd have more of them, and have more jobs.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Andylusion said:


> I don't have a sad sad story. In 2006, I had a private health insurance policy for $67 a month, that was basic catastrophic coverage. Due to ObamaCare, those policies are gone. All gone. They don't exist. You can't get one, no matter how much you want it.
> 
> Instead, the cheapest policy that I could find was $250 a month. That's the cheapest, most basic coverage policy you can get.
> 
> Of course it's subsidized by $170 by the government, down to $80 a month. So you are paying for my health care. Before, I paid for it myself. Now you are.
> 
> When your taxes go up, which they absolutely must.... you can blame yourself for it. I was more than happy to pay for my own health insurance, without taking a dollar from your taxes. But you people decided differently. So I'm going to milk you tax paying idiots for as much as I can. Your fault. Not mine.



Excellent reply. 

When this hit the Supreme Court and Robert's screwed us, I was in a local blog fighting with the liberals on this issue. 

Of course, after it was ruled Constitutional, the liberals celebrated and bashed me about my healthcare.  

So I wrote back telling them that they won fair and square.   Because of that, I was going to apply for disability.  Why not?  The government gives me the hardest time to work anyway.  I have to fight them tooth and nail.  I can't afford to pay for my own insurance, so screw it, I'm contacting a lawyer to get the ball rolling.  I won't have any problem getting my doctor to back me up.  You liberals can now celebrate because you won. 

They wrote back with great concern trying to get me to reconsider.  They started talking like Republicans saying I would have no pride by staying home on disability, I would get nowhere in life, I'll regret my decision because it's a decision I made for the rest of my life. 

Because of Commie Care, government created 14 million more (according to the White House figures) new government dependents.  Only a liberal can relish in making more people depend on the federal government.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Tree huggers hate nukes as much as they do fossil fuels. The greatest decrease in our pollution came from fracking and look how they are complaining about that.



Because Fracking didn't decrease pollution, it increased it.  Seriously, did they drop you on your head when you were a baby? 



Andylusion said:


> I don't have a sad sad story. In 2006, I had a private health insurance policy for $67 a month, that was basic catastrophic coverage. Due to ObamaCare, those policies are gone. All gone. They don't exist. You can't get one, no matter how much you want it.
> 
> Instead, the cheapest policy that I could find was $250 a month. That's the cheapest, most basic coverage policy you can get.
> 
> Of course it's subsidized by $170 by the government, down to $80 a month. So you are paying for my health care. Before, I paid for it myself. Now you are.



so here you are whining that instead of being ripped off by a policy that really doesn't cover anything, you are getting a policy that covers stuff and other people are paying for it?  Seriously, this is your complaint, then?  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Feel good is what global warming is all about. Ethanol creates more pollution than manufacturing gasoline, it ruins engines and has a low MPG rating, but environmentalists didn't care, as long as it meant burning less efficient fuel such as oil products.



Then you should talk to the corn industry, not the environmentalists.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> When this hit the Supreme Court and Robert's screwed us, I was in a local blog fighting with the liberals on this issue.
> 
> Of course, after it was ruled Constitutional, the liberals celebrated and bashed me about my healthcare.
> 
> So I wrote back telling them that they won fair and square. Because of that, I was going to apply for disability. Why not? The government gives me the hardest time to work anyway. I have to fight them tooth and nail. I can't afford to pay for my own insurance, so screw it, I'm contacting a lawyer to get the ball rolling. I won't have any problem getting my doctor to back me up. You liberals can now celebrate because you won.



So I'm a bit confused here, Raycist from Cleveland... either you are a fantastic entrepreneur dealing in real estate that people are banging down the doors to move into... or you are a poor guy on a disability barely making it and having to go on "Commie Care" because you can't send out a  resume and get a decent job that has decent health care coverage... 

Which is it, exactly?


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tree huggers hate nukes as much as they do fossil fuels. The greatest decrease in our pollution came from fracking and look how they are complaining about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Fracking didn't decrease pollution, it increased it.  Seriously, did they drop you on your head when you were a baby?
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a sad sad story. In 2006, I had a private health insurance policy for $67 a month, that was basic catastrophic coverage. Due to ObamaCare, those policies are gone. All gone. They don't exist. You can't get one, no matter how much you want it.
> 
> Instead, the cheapest policy that I could find was $250 a month. That's the cheapest, most basic coverage policy you can get.
> 
> Of course it's subsidized by $170 by the government, down to $80 a month. So you are paying for my health care. Before, I paid for it myself. Now you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so here you are whining that instead of being ripped off by a policy that really doesn't cover anything, you are getting a policy that covers stuff and other people are paying for it?  Seriously, this is your complaint, then?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel good is what global warming is all about. Ethanol creates more pollution than manufacturing gasoline, it ruins engines and has a low MPG rating, but environmentalists didn't care, as long as it meant burning less efficient fuel such as oil products.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should talk to the corn industry, not the environmentalists.
Click to expand...


It's funny that you think you know what my police did, or didn't cover.

You want to know how to determine if you are being ripped off or not?   It's whether you agree, with the price, verses the coverage.   My old policy covered everything that I wanted it too.     I was never ripped off.

The owner of the policy, the person who pays the premiums, is the only person who can determine if they were ripped off or not.   Not you.

And it's not even a complaint.   I told people back in 2008, before ObamaCare was ever passed, exactly what I would do.    My parents are millionaires.   If I was really hurting for health care, they could cover my health insurance premiums for a decade without blinking an eye.

But they didn't setup this system.  Nor did I.  Why should either of us be forced to pay the higher premiums that you demand?

So, just like I said 8 years ago now.... I said very openly, that I could pay for it myself, but if you pass this bill, I'm going to have YOU pay for it.    If you are ok with that, great, we both win.

I used to pay for my health care myself.   Now you do.   Thanks for paying my bills chump.    By the way, I'm applying for food stamps too.    By the way, I am looking into a program that helps pay heating bills.    I did check into ObamaPhones, but I did not qualify.

But let me make it clear....  I'm going to soak you people for every single dollar and penny, that you are stupid enough to give me.    Again, if your ok with that, great.  Glad to screw you over, and you like it.  Saves me from digging into my inheritance when my parents pass on.

By the way, when they do pass on, and I'm a millionaire, I likely can still get ObamaCare, food stamps, and heating assistance, because all of those programs are based on income, not net worth.

But who am I to argue against all those programs.  I wouldn't want you to accuse me of being greedy and uncaring for the poor.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> So I'm a bit confused here, Raycist from Cleveland... either you are a fantastic entrepreneur dealing in real estate that people are banging down the doors to move into... or you are a poor guy on a disability barely making it and having to go on "Commie Care" because you can't send out a resume and get a decent job that has decent health care coverage...
> 
> Which is it, exactly?



Typical liberal.....making stuff up that nobody ever said. 

Being a landlord does not make one a "fantastic entrepreneur dealing in real estate."  I'm just your typical working landlord....simple as that. 

If you had better comprehension skills, you would have understood that disability was a discussion I had with other bloggers---not that I actually went through with my plan--just demonstrating to liberals that this is what you may end up with when you promote and support more government dependency.    

And as I explained before repeatedly, because of Commie Care, it doesn't make sense to look for new employment especially around my age.  That's because Commie Care took the competition out of getting good employees because they can drop out of providing coverage at any time.  Now if my employer made the dangerous move of stopping that benefit without Commie Care, my new employer would likely not do the same since it was not a standard practice and growing as it is today.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> It's funny that you think you know what my police did, or didn't cover.
> 
> You want to know how to determine if you are being ripped off or not? It's whether you agree, with the price, verses the coverage. My old policy covered everything that I wanted it too. I was never ripped off.



and how many claims did you make against that coverage?  I'm guessing, no big ones.   Nothing like Chemotherapy or the like.  



Andylusion said:


> The owner of the policy, the person who pays the premiums, is the only person who can determine if they were ripped off or not. Not you.
> 
> And it's not even a complaint. I told people back in 2008, before ObamaCare was ever passed, exactly what I would do. My parents are millionaires. If I was really hurting for health care, they could cover my health insurance premiums for a decade without blinking an eye.



Oh, look, everyone, another eccentric Millionaire who posts on USMB.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tree huggers hate nukes as much as they do fossil fuels. The greatest decrease in our pollution came from fracking and look how they are complaining about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Fracking didn't decrease pollution, it increased it.  Seriously, did they drop you on your head when you were a baby?
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a sad sad story. In 2006, I had a private health insurance policy for $67 a month, that was basic catastrophic coverage. Due to ObamaCare, those policies are gone. All gone. They don't exist. You can't get one, no matter how much you want it.
> 
> Instead, the cheapest policy that I could find was $250 a month. That's the cheapest, most basic coverage policy you can get.
> 
> Of course it's subsidized by $170 by the government, down to $80 a month. So you are paying for my health care. Before, I paid for it myself. Now you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so here you are whining that instead of being ripped off by a policy that really doesn't cover anything, you are getting a policy that covers stuff and other people are paying for it?  Seriously, this is your complaint, then?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel good is what global warming is all about. Ethanol creates more pollution than manufacturing gasoline, it ruins engines and has a low MPG rating, but environmentalists didn't care, as long as it meant burning less efficient fuel such as oil products.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should talk to the corn industry, not the environmentalists.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> Because Fracking didn't decrease pollution, it increased it. Seriously, did they drop you on your head when you were a baby?



Maybe they dropped you! 

Sierra Club (Reluctantly) Admits Fracking has Helped Lower CO2 Emissions



JoeB131 said:


> Then you should talk to the corn industry, not the environmentalists.



The corn industry didn't promote it--environmentalists did.  The grain and commodities industries just took advantage of it.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you had better comprehension skills, you would have understood that disability was a discussion I had with other bloggers---not that I actually went through with my plan--just demonstrating to liberals that this is what you may end up with when you promote and support more government dependency.



That's because you are a high-grade retard who has never had to actually try to apply for a disability.  My sister had to because she lost a large portion of her eyesight when her retina detached.  Social Security insisted she could do a lot of other things, so, meh, not to much, even if she couldn't work as a nurse in a hospital or clinic anymore. 

Do you know what causes "government dependency"?  The unwillingness of the 1% to pay a fair wage for a fair days work.  Walmart pays its people starvation wages and then tell them how to apply for food stamps.  And the Waltons are the richest people in the fucking country.  And being a good Battered Housewife Conservative, you admire their business skills.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Maybe they dropped you!
> 
> Sierra Club (Reluctantly) Admits Fracking has Helped Lower CO2 Emissions



again, are you some kind of fucking retard?  YOu do re realize that fracking really fucks up the water supply, right?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> That's because you are a high-grade retard who has never had to actually try to apply for a disability. My sister had to because she lost a large portion of her eyesight when her retina detached. Social Security insisted she could do a lot of other things, so, meh, not to much, even if she couldn't work as a nurse in a hospital or clinic anymore.
> 
> Do you know what causes "government dependency"? The unwillingness of the 1% to pay a fair wage for a fair days work. Walmart pays its people starvation wages and then tell them how to apply for food stamps. And the Waltons are the richest people in the fucking country. And being a good Battered Housewife Conservative, you admire their business skills.



You Socialists and your "fair" this and "fair" that.  WTF ever made you half-Commies the decider on what is fair anyway?  I don't recall that debate or final decision. 

As for disability, I have much more than a claim. I can easily prove I can no longer work and government trying to spend money to train me for anything else at my age would be a complete waste since I will be retiring in 9 years.  So what are they going to do?  Send me to school for two or more years, maybe continue disability until I can earn enough to make ends meet, and hope that a trained "whatever" will land a person with training and no experience a job at my age? 

I know all about disability.  One of my tenants is on SS disability, I dated a girl that went on disability, and they got disability much younger than I am today.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they dropped you!
> 
> Sierra Club (Reluctantly) Admits Fracking has Helped Lower CO2 Emissions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, are you some kind of fucking retard?  YOu do re realize that fracking really fucks up the water supply, right?
Click to expand...


Not according to the EPA it doesn't.  In fact, they dropped all of their investigations of the bogus claims.  Quit getting your information from left-wing blogs.  Democrats are born liars.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You Socialists and your "fair" this and "fair" that. WTF ever made you half-Commies the decider on what is fair anyway? I don't recall that debate or final decision.



We had that debate 80 years ago. It was called The New Deal.  Your side lost.  The 1% has been playing on your racial, sexual and religious fears to chip away at that, and that's why you live in a city that is 50% abandoned now.  



Ray From Cleveland said:


> As for disability, I have much more than a claim. I can easily prove I can no longer work and government trying to spend money to train me for anything else at my age would be a complete waste since I will be retiring in 9 years. So what are they going to do? Send me to school for two or more years, maybe continue disability until I can earn enough to make ends meet, and hope that a trained "whatever" will land a person with training and no experience a job at my age?



Please go ahead and try it. You'll find the government isn't giving away money as easily as you think they do. 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> I know all about disability. One of my tenants is on SS disability, I dated a girl that went on disability, and they got disability much younger than I am today.



For someone who whines and snivels about the welfare state, you know an awful lot of welfare people.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Not according to the EPA it doesn't. In fact, they dropped all of their investigations of the bogus claims. Quit getting your information from left-wing blogs. Democrats are born liars.



This is what Right wing Bloomberg News had to say about it. 

EPA Fracking Study Faulted by Science Panel Citing Failed Wells

_Science advisers reviewing the EPA study said Monday the agency’s description isn’t good enough. During a six-hour teleconference, the Science Advisory Board review panel parsed the language, zeroing in on the phrase as too vague and ambiguous to serve the public. A repudiation of the EPA’s conclusions could reignite debate over fracking and drive calls for more regulation.


"It still comes down to what does systemic mean and what does widespread mean," said Susan Brantley, a member of the review panel and director of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University. "
_
Again, Battered Wife Conservatives.  They don't mean to poison our drinking water, they just do.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the EPA it doesn't. In fact, they dropped all of their investigations of the bogus claims. Quit getting your information from left-wing blogs. Democrats are born liars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what Right wing Bloomberg News had to say about it.
> 
> EPA Fracking Study Faulted by Science Panel Citing Failed Wells
> 
> _Science advisers reviewing the EPA study said Monday the agency’s description isn’t good enough. During a six-hour teleconference, the Science Advisory Board review panel parsed the language, zeroing in on the phrase as too vague and ambiguous to serve the public. A repudiation of the EPA’s conclusions could reignite debate over fracking and drive calls for more regulation.
> 
> 
> "It still comes down to what does systemic mean and what does widespread mean," said Susan Brantley, a member of the review panel and director of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Pennsylvania State University. "
> _
> Again, Battered Wife Conservatives.  They don't mean to poison our drinking water, they just do.
Click to expand...


Two paragraphs that are important in your article:

_*In developing its assessment, the EPA analyzed more than 3,500 sources of information, including previously published papers, state reports and the agency’s own scientific research, but found no clear evidence that the fracking process itself caused chemicals to flow through underground fissures and immediately contaminate drinking water. The agency said injecting fluids into formations that also contain drinking water resources "directly affects the quality of that water."

Industry representatives said the history of fracking shows it is safe. "This technology has been applied more than 2 million times with no documented cases of groundwater contamination," said Erik Milito, a director with the American Petroleum Institute, a Washington-based trade group for the oil and natural gas industry. "The science in support of EPA’s conclusion of no widespread, systemic impacts is credible and clear; any other conclusion would simply ignore the science."*_

Okay, so over 2 million sites that were fracked, and this agency pointed out four in suspicion. 

And even if they found any evidence of water pollution, the benefits far outweigh the negatives: cheaper and reliable sources of fuel, less dependency on foreign oil, much lower fuel prices, the thousands of jobs fracking produced for Americans, reduced Co2 emissions.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Socialists and your "fair" this and "fair" that. WTF ever made you half-Commies the decider on what is fair anyway? I don't recall that debate or final decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had that debate 80 years ago. It was called The New Deal.  Your side lost.  The 1% has been playing on your racial, sexual and religious fears to chip away at that, and that's why you live in a city that is 50% abandoned now.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for disability, I have much more than a claim. I can easily prove I can no longer work and government trying to spend money to train me for anything else at my age would be a complete waste since I will be retiring in 9 years. So what are they going to do? Send me to school for two or more years, maybe continue disability until I can earn enough to make ends meet, and hope that a trained "whatever" will land a person with training and no experience a job at my age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please go ahead and try it. You'll find the government isn't giving away money as easily as you think they do.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know all about disability. One of my tenants is on SS disability, I dated a girl that went on disability, and they got disability much younger than I am today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For someone who whines and snivels about the welfare state, you know an awful lot of welfare people.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> We had that debate 80 years ago. It was called The New Deal. Your side lost. The 1% has been playing on your racial, sexual and religious fears to chip away at that, and that's why you live in a city that is 50% abandoned now.



Actually my side won during the GW and Reagan years.  You lost.  



JoeB131 said:


> Please go ahead and try it. You'll find the government isn't giving away money as easily as you think they do.



Sure they're not.  That's why during the DumBama administration, we had a huge growth in SS disability approvals.  



JoeB131 said:


> For someone who whines and snivels about the welfare state, you know an awful lot of welfare people.



That's how you learn.  You libs take some sociology course and think you know everything.  Experience is a much better learning experience than books at times.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny that you think you know what my police did, or didn't cover.
> 
> You want to know how to determine if you are being ripped off or not? It's whether you agree, with the price, verses the coverage. My old policy covered everything that I wanted it too. I was never ripped off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and how many claims did you make against that coverage?  I'm guessing, no big ones.   Nothing like Chemotherapy or the like.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The owner of the policy, the person who pays the premiums, is the only person who can determine if they were ripped off or not. Not you.
> 
> And it's not even a complaint. I told people back in 2008, before ObamaCare was ever passed, exactly what I would do. My parents are millionaires. If I was really hurting for health care, they could cover my health insurance premiums for a decade without blinking an eye.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, look, everyone, another eccentric Millionaire who posts on USMB.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and I haven't made any massive claims against the far more expensive plan that YOU are paying for either.  So what?

I'm not a millionaire yet.    Doesn't matter much to my point.  Thanks for covering my bills chump.     My inheritance appreciates it.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Socialists and your "fair" this and "fair" that. WTF ever made you half-Commies the decider on what is fair anyway? I don't recall that debate or final decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had that debate 80 years ago. It was called The New Deal.  Your side lost.  The 1% has been playing on your racial, sexual and religious fears to chip away at that, and that's why you live in a city that is 50% abandoned now.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for disability, I have much more than a claim. I can easily prove I can no longer work and government trying to spend money to train me for anything else at my age would be a complete waste since I will be retiring in 9 years. So what are they going to do? Send me to school for two or more years, maybe continue disability until I can earn enough to make ends meet, and hope that a trained "whatever" will land a person with training and no experience a job at my age?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please go ahead and try it. You'll find the government isn't giving away money as easily as you think they do.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know all about disability. One of my tenants is on SS disability, I dated a girl that went on disability, and they got disability much younger than I am today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For someone who whines and snivels about the welfare state, you know an awful lot of welfare people.
Click to expand...


Actually I think your side lost.  You just don't know it yet.   But you will.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Actually my side won during the GW and Reagan years. You lost.



Your side did not run on, "let's dimsantle the middle class and make you work harder for less money".  Your side ran on "Hey, those two faggots want to get married."



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's how you learn. You libs take some sociology course and think you know everything. Experience is a much better learning experience than books at times.



Really, I thought it was just you are a white trash lowlife who knows a lot of other white trash lowlifes... as opposed to people who work for a living.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually my side won during the GW and Reagan years. You lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your side did not run on, "let's dimsantle the middle class and make you work harder for less money".  Your side ran on "Hey, those two faggots want to get married."
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's how you learn. You libs take some sociology course and think you know everything. Experience is a much better learning experience than books at times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, I thought it was just you are a white trash lowlife who knows a lot of other white trash lowlifes... as opposed to people who work for a living.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> Your side did not run on, "let's dimsantle the middle class and make you work harder for less money". Your side ran on "Hey, those two faggots want to get married."



Our side ran on lowering taxes including the 1%.  Most people like the idea of lower taxes. 



JoeB131 said:


> Really, I thought it was just you are a white trash lowlife who knows a lot of other white trash lowlifes... as opposed to people who work for a living.



Actually I know both.  But I wouldn't call some people on disability white trash, that's more of a liberal thing to do.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Andylusion said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tree huggers hate nukes as much as they do fossil fuels. The greatest decrease in our pollution came from fracking and look how they are complaining about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Fracking didn't decrease pollution, it increased it.  Seriously, did they drop you on your head when you were a baby?
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a sad sad story. In 2006, I had a private health insurance policy for $67 a month, that was basic catastrophic coverage. Due to ObamaCare, those policies are gone. All gone. They don't exist. You can't get one, no matter how much you want it.
> 
> Instead, the cheapest policy that I could find was $250 a month. That's the cheapest, most basic coverage policy you can get.
> 
> Of course it's subsidized by $170 by the government, down to $80 a month. So you are paying for my health care. Before, I paid for it myself. Now you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so here you are whining that instead of being ripped off by a policy that really doesn't cover anything, you are getting a policy that covers stuff and other people are paying for it?  Seriously, this is your complaint, then?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel good is what global warming is all about. Ethanol creates more pollution than manufacturing gasoline, it ruins engines and has a low MPG rating, but environmentalists didn't care, as long as it meant burning less efficient fuel such as oil products.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should talk to the corn industry, not the environmentalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny that you think you know what my police did, or didn't cover.
> 
> You want to know how to determine if you are being ripped off or not?   It's whether you agree, with the price, verses the coverage.   My old policy covered everything that I wanted it too.     I was never ripped off.
> 
> The owner of the policy, the person who pays the premiums, is the only person who can determine if they were ripped off or not.   Not you.
> 
> And it's not even a complaint.   I told people back in 2008, before ObamaCare was ever passed, exactly what I would do.    My parents are millionaires.   If I was really hurting for health care, they could cover my health insurance premiums for a decade without blinking an eye.
> 
> But they didn't setup this system.  Nor did I.  Why should either of us be forced to pay the higher premiums that you demand?
> 
> So, just like I said 8 years ago now.... I said very openly, that I could pay for it myself, but if you pass this bill, I'm going to have YOU pay for it.    If you are ok with that, great, we both win.
> 
> I used to pay for my health care myself.   Now you do.   Thanks for paying my bills chump.    By the way, I'm applying for food stamps too.    By the way, I am looking into a program that helps pay heating bills.    I did check into ObamaPhones, but I did not qualify.
> 
> But let me make it clear....  I'm going to soak you people for every single dollar and penny, that you are stupid enough to give me.    Again, if your ok with that, great.  Glad to screw you over, and you like it.  Saves me from digging into my inheritance when my parents pass on.
> 
> By the way, when they do pass on, and I'm a millionaire, I likely can still get ObamaCare, food stamps, and heating assistance, because all of those programs are based on income, not net worth.
> 
> But who am I to argue against all those programs.  I wouldn't want you to accuse me of being greedy and uncaring for the poor.
Click to expand...


Tell me again why the hell I work?


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had better comprehension skills, you would have understood that disability was a discussion I had with other bloggers---not that I actually went through with my plan--just demonstrating to liberals that this is what you may end up with when you promote and support more government dependency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you are a high-grade retard who has never had to actually try to apply for a disability.  My sister had to because she lost a large portion of her eyesight when her retina detached.  Social Security insisted she could do a lot of other things, so, meh, not to much, even if she couldn't work as a nurse in a hospital or clinic anymore.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.


----------



## Andylusion

Jarlaxle said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tree huggers hate nukes as much as they do fossil fuels. The greatest decrease in our pollution came from fracking and look how they are complaining about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Fracking didn't decrease pollution, it increased it.  Seriously, did they drop you on your head when you were a baby?
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a sad sad story. In 2006, I had a private health insurance policy for $67 a month, that was basic catastrophic coverage. Due to ObamaCare, those policies are gone. All gone. They don't exist. You can't get one, no matter how much you want it.
> 
> Instead, the cheapest policy that I could find was $250 a month. That's the cheapest, most basic coverage policy you can get.
> 
> Of course it's subsidized by $170 by the government, down to $80 a month. So you are paying for my health care. Before, I paid for it myself. Now you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so here you are whining that instead of being ripped off by a policy that really doesn't cover anything, you are getting a policy that covers stuff and other people are paying for it?  Seriously, this is your complaint, then?
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel good is what global warming is all about. Ethanol creates more pollution than manufacturing gasoline, it ruins engines and has a low MPG rating, but environmentalists didn't care, as long as it meant burning less efficient fuel such as oil products.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should talk to the corn industry, not the environmentalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny that you think you know what my police did, or didn't cover.
> 
> You want to know how to determine if you are being ripped off or not?   It's whether you agree, with the price, verses the coverage.   My old policy covered everything that I wanted it too.     I was never ripped off.
> 
> The owner of the policy, the person who pays the premiums, is the only person who can determine if they were ripped off or not.   Not you.
> 
> And it's not even a complaint.   I told people back in 2008, before ObamaCare was ever passed, exactly what I would do.    My parents are millionaires.   If I was really hurting for health care, they could cover my health insurance premiums for a decade without blinking an eye.
> 
> But they didn't setup this system.  Nor did I.  Why should either of us be forced to pay the higher premiums that you demand?
> 
> So, just like I said 8 years ago now.... I said very openly, that I could pay for it myself, but if you pass this bill, I'm going to have YOU pay for it.    If you are ok with that, great, we both win.
> 
> I used to pay for my health care myself.   Now you do.   Thanks for paying my bills chump.    By the way, I'm applying for food stamps too.    By the way, I am looking into a program that helps pay heating bills.    I did check into ObamaPhones, but I did not qualify.
> 
> But let me make it clear....  I'm going to soak you people for every single dollar and penny, that you are stupid enough to give me.    Again, if your ok with that, great.  Glad to screw you over, and you like it.  Saves me from digging into my inheritance when my parents pass on.
> 
> By the way, when they do pass on, and I'm a millionaire, I likely can still get ObamaCare, food stamps, and heating assistance, because all of those programs are based on income, not net worth.
> 
> But who am I to argue against all those programs.  I wouldn't want you to accuse me of being greedy and uncaring for the poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me again why the hell I work?
Click to expand...


To a leftist, you work for the good of everyone else.  So get your butt back to work, and pay those taxes for me.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Andylusion said:


> To a leftist, you work for the good of everyone else. So get your butt back to work, and pay those taxes for me.



*"A liberal believes if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are." *
Ken Blackwell


----------



## Jarlaxle

I think I need to go on disability.  Fuck, I give up.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Jarlaxle said:


> I think I need to go on disability.  Fuck, I give up.



I probably could have a long time ago, it's just that I have too much pride and integrity.  Besides, the money isn't all that great on disability unless you have other sources of income such as a spouse or a side-job.  

As long as I can fight the government and work, I'll continue to do so instead of taking the easy road.  Once government stops me from working, then it's another ball game.  I gave it my best shot and they won. 

Don't get me wrong, I would love to retire this very day, but I would want to having my own money--not the money of other people working.


----------



## Andylusion

Jarlaxle said:


> I think I need to go on disability.  Fuck, I give up.



I would.   By all means.  Take every dollar you can from these idiots.


----------



## mudwhistle

Clementine said:


> Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?
> 
> 
> 
> "The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.
> 
> While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:
> 
> The Solar Impulse 2 features *17,000 solar cells* crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.
> 
> By contrast, a *Boeing 747-400* running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.
> 
> Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about *15 to 30 times as much energy* as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."
> 
> http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb


The left likes to control usage by jacking up the price. They just don't want us to know that's what they're doing, and they'll deny it if you ever accuse them of doing it.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> Tell me again why the hell I work?



Because you're a stupid tool who gets duped by the 1%. 

Battered Housewife Conservatism, everyone.


----------



## Jarlaxle

You are a truly SPECIAL kind of stupid, boy.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me again why the hell I work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you're a stupid tool who gets duped by the 1%.
> 
> Battered Housewife Conservatism, everyone.
Click to expand...


Yeah.  That's brilliant.  You are getting duped by the 1%, even though it's the leftists that are taking your pay check.

This is how leftists think.... they have their hands all over your wallet, and in the very act of taking all your money, they point to the rich and scream "They are the ones screwing you!".    That should be an editorial cartoon.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Yeah. That's brilliant. You are getting duped by the 1%, even though it's the leftists that are taking your pay check.
> 
> This is how leftists think.... they have their hands all over your wallet, and in the very act of taking all your money, they point to the rich and scream "They are the ones screwing you!". That should be an editorial cartoon.



Uh, guy, taxes pay for mostly things we need...  so, no.  

The three biggest line items in federal spending are Social Security, Medicare and Defense.  Things the Right Wing never openly says they want to cut.  

Bu you know what, if we kept up with the strong middle class we had in the 1970's, and made the rich pay their fair share, this wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. That's brilliant. You are getting duped by the 1%, even though it's the leftists that are taking your pay check.
> 
> This is how leftists think.... they have their hands all over your wallet, and in the very act of taking all your money, they point to the rich and scream "They are the ones screwing you!". That should be an editorial cartoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, taxes pay for mostly things we need...  so, no.
> 
> The three biggest line items in federal spending are Social Security, Medicare and Defense.  Things the Right Wing never openly says they want to cut.
> 
> Bu you know what, if we kept up with the strong middle class we had in the 1970's, and made the rich pay their fair share, this wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...


Fail.  When I look at all the things in life that I need, and want.... they are provided by the wealthy 1%, not politicians in government.

The rich have never "paid their fair share" based on your definition of it.   Never.    And they never will.   And they never have in any country.

You are basically saying "If only we had a Unicorn, then everything would work out perfectly".

I'll openly say it.  I want to cut Social Security and Medicare.  Completely.  100%.  I would completely eliminate both programs.

They don't provide us with things we need.   Medicare is a disaster.  The reason health care costs have gone insane, is specifically because of Medicare and Medicaid.

Neither pays the cost of providing care, and thus health care providers jack up costs on private patients, to subsidize the cost of gov-patients.   The result is, we are charged a higher price for care, and pay a tax which supports that jacked up price we have to pay.  Literally you are paying a tax, that causes your costs to go up.  How ironic is that.

And socialist insecurity is a joke.  The average SS payment is barely $1,200 a month.  An old person can literally earn more as a Walmart greeter.

Worse, if you take those Social Security taxes that you have been paying in your whole life, and placed them into an average stock mutual fund, you would be a millionaire, or close to it, by the time you are 65.    In other words, you are paying in wages that could make you a millionaire, to end up a Walmart greeter.

Both programs are horribly oppressive to the poor, and doom people to poverty when they are old.

As for the military, that is the one primary purpose of the Federal Government.  Social Security and Medicare, are not even constitutionally legal.  The military is.

And more than that, we could cut all taxes by 50%, and still fund the entire military at current levels, and have hundreds of billions to pay down the national debt.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Fail. When I look at all the things in life that I need, and want.... they are provided by the wealthy 1%, not politicians in government.



No, they didn't.  Now, I don't know what you do for a living, but unless it's shoveling shit behind a rich persons dressage horse, you are probably in a job providing goods and services that are ultimately used by other consumers, who are out there providing the goods and services you use. 

The mistake you make is that you think that parasitic 1% are in fact a vital organ. 



Andylusion said:


> The rich have never "paid their fair share" based on your definition of it. Never. And they never will. And they never have in any country.



Actually, what they were paying Pre-Reagan was just fine.  We passed mostly balanced budgets, we paid for needed infrastructure, we even had some cool things like a space program. 



Andylusion said:


> I'll openly say it. I want to cut Social Security and Medicare. Completely. 100%. I would completely eliminate both programs.
> 
> They don't provide us with things we need. Medicare is a disaster. The reason health care costs have gone insane, is specifically because of Medicare and Medicaid.



This is an interesting contention, because the constant whine we hear from medical providers is that they don't pay enough compared to what they can stick insurance companies for.  Also, while the US spends 17% of it's GDP on medical care, single payer countries like Japan and Canada only pay bout 8%.  



Andylusion said:


> Worse, if you take those Social Security taxes that you have been paying in your whole life, and placed them into an average stock mutual fund, you would be a millionaire, or close to it, by the time you are 65. In other words, you are paying in wages that could make you a millionaire, to end up a Walmart greeter.



Or you can be completely wiped out if the stock market crashed like it did in 2008.  



Andylusion said:


> As for the military, that is the one primary purpose of the Federal Government. Social Security and Medicare, are not even constitutionally legal. The military is.



The constitution calls for to provide for a "Common defense".  Exactly how is spending money to project poweron the other side of the planet providing for a "common defense"

The Constitution also calls for the government to promote the general welfare, which I think not letting old people die falls into


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail. When I look at all the things in life that I need, and want.... they are provided by the wealthy 1%, not politicians in government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they didn't.  Now, I don't know what you do for a living, but unless it's shoveling shit behind a rich persons dressage horse, you are probably in a job providing goods and services that are ultimately used by other consumers, who are out there providing the goods and services you use.
> 
> The mistake you make is that you think that parasitic 1% are in fact a vital organ.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rich have never "paid their fair share" based on your definition of it. Never. And they never will. And they never have in any country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, what they were paying Pre-Reagan was just fine.  We passed mostly balanced budgets, we paid for needed infrastructure, we even had some cool things like a space program.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll openly say it. I want to cut Social Security and Medicare. Completely. 100%. I would completely eliminate both programs.
> 
> They don't provide us with things we need. Medicare is a disaster. The reason health care costs have gone insane, is specifically because of Medicare and Medicaid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an interesting contention, because the constant whine we hear from medical providers is that they don't pay enough compared to what they can stick insurance companies for.  Also, while the US spends 17% of it's GDP on medical care, single payer countries like Japan and Canada only pay bout 8%.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Worse, if you take those Social Security taxes that you have been paying in your whole life, and placed them into an average stock mutual fund, you would be a millionaire, or close to it, by the time you are 65. In other words, you are paying in wages that could make you a millionaire, to end up a Walmart greeter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or you can be completely wiped out if the stock market crashed like it did in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for the military, that is the one primary purpose of the Federal Government. Social Security and Medicare, are not even constitutionally legal. The military is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution calls for to provide for a "Common defense".  Exactly how is spending money to project poweron the other side of the planet providing for a "common defense"
> 
> The Constitution also calls for the government to promote the general welfare, which I think not letting old people die falls into
Click to expand...


*First*.... anyone who claims that the 1% are a parasite, and are not vital to anything..... is an idiot.  If that's you, than that is you.     If you doubt that the rich are vital, then show me one country.....> ONE COUNTRY < that has expelled all the rich, and driven them away, which has been prosperous.

Cuba?   Nope.   Venezuela?  Nope.   Soviet Union?  LOL!  Pre-78 China?   You are crazy.

France believed what you said, and has actively pushed an anti-rich policy.  Now the country is in an economic emergency.   See, when you tell the rich you are going to steal all their wealth, because they are parasites.... they tend to leave.   And they did.  Now France is in riots and chaos.   Well done stupid.

Every country that gets rid of the rich turns out the same. I predicted this with Venezuela, and I was right.  I predicted this with France, and I was right.

So where is your proof?  Where is your example?  What country do you point to?  Huh?  Fail.  Total fail.

And you claim the rich don't provide what I need?  Really?  Ok.   I need a new home.  Which home could I buy that no rich person built?   Which car can I purchase to replace mine, that wasn't built by a rich guy?     What gasoline do I buy not provided by rich people?     I can't even think of a dinner plate I've purchased, that wasn't made by a rich guy.

What pay check I've earned, didn't come from a rich guy?  Which homeless impoverished beggar, do I get my next pay check from, huh?  You people.....  
*
Actually, what they were paying Pre-Reagan was just fine. We passed mostly balanced budgets, we paid for needed infrastructure, we even had some cool things like a space program.*

Pre-Reagan, the rich paid less of the tax burden, than they are now.   The people who paid the majority of our tax bills were the poor and middle class.  Not the rich.

Prior to Reagan, the lower 50% of wage earners, paid over 10% of Federal Taxes.   Today they pay less than 4%.
Prior to Reagan the middle class 50% to 75%, paid 20% of all Federal Taxes.   Today it's only 12%.

The top 1%, used to pay only 20% of taxes, and now they pay 40% of all Federal Taxes revenue.

So you are ignorant.   Facts trump your Opinion.   As I said....   the rich have never paid their fair share, as you define 'fair share'.   Never.  And they never will.   They didn't pay for everything then, and they don't pay for everything now, and they won't pay for everything you want in the future.

And if you try and force them to like Cuba France, and Venezuela, you'll end up in ruins and chaos, just like Cuba France and Venezuela.   Or worse, like Soviet Russia.

*Or you can be completely wiped out if the stock market crashed like it did in 2008.*

What are you talking about.  My parents are millionaires. They owned stock.   They were not wiped out.

*I* own stocks, and I wasn't wiped out by 2008.    I don't know anyone who was wiped out.   When you say dumb stupid ignorant things like this, I start to wonder if you have any intelligence at all?    At least with your claims above you can say you were just ignorant.

But to claim "you can be completely wiped out!" when not a single person was wiped out.....  that's mental retardation there.   Either that, or intentional partisan stupidity.   Either way, you lose a ton of credibility.

*The constitution calls for to provide for a "Common defense". Exactly how is spending money to project poweron the other side of the planet providing for a "common defense"
The Constitution also calls for the government to promote the general welfare, which I think not letting old people die falls into.*

The meaning of "General Welfare" is very explicit.  You can read what it means in numerous texts, all of which make it clear, that "To provide for the GENERAL welfare", means exactly that.   General Welfare, not individual welfare at the expense of others.

Simply put, laws written are never to be for the welfare of a specific group, at the cost of all others.  For example, defense of the nation, benefits everyone in the nation.  Law enforcement, and court systems, provide benefits to the entire nation.

Social Security, harms one group with oppressive taxes, for the benefit of another group.  That's not general welfare.

Moreover, there are numerous texts that says specifically that "general welfare" does not entitle government to do anything, but only those things which are enumerated in the constitution.

What is really funny is, Madison, fourth president of the US, co-author of the constitution, and the Federalist papers, specifically, and directly warned against people like you.

If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.​If Congress can apply money to anything they claim is 'general welfare', then congress can do absolutely anything, and there is no limitation on government power, and there is no purpose to the constitution.

200 years ago, and James Madison directly warned all of us, about people like you.  You should be honored that such an amazing man, had the ability to warn us of tyrant scum like you.


----------



## EriktheRed

Ray From Cleveland said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I do is observe.  And what I observe is this obsession by government to take over healthcare and energy at the same time.  Yes, baby steps baby steps, but it's like the frog in the pot of cold water.
Click to expand...



Well, we're observing your nice shiny hat.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> *First*.... anyone who claims that the 1% are a parasite, and are not vital to anything..... is an idiot. If that's you, than that is you. If you doubt that the rich are vital, then show me one country.....> ONE COUNTRY < that has expelled all the rich, and driven them away, which has been prosperous.
> 
> Cuba? Nope. Venezuela? Nope. Soviet Union? LOL! Pre-78 China? You are crazy.



Cuba and Venezuela were poor countries before they adopted communism, and the world proceeded to punish them for doing so.  The USSR came about this close to World Domination.  China went from an improverished country to a superpower.   All without rich people. 



Andylusion said:


> France believed what you said, and has actively pushed an anti-rich policy. Now the country is in an economic emergency. See, when you tell the rich you are going to steal all their wealth, because they are parasites.... they tend to leave. And they did. Now France is in riots and chaos. Well done stupid.



I think you are deluded as to what France is like, but that's okay.  The right likes to pretend the rest of the world only exists as bad examples. 



Andylusion said:


> Prior to Reagan, the lower 50% of wage earners, paid over 10% of Federal Taxes. Today they pay less than 4%.
> Prior to Reagan the middle class 50% to 75%, paid 20% of all Federal Taxes. Today it's only 12%.



Those figures are wrong.  Next. 



Andylusion said:


> What are you talking about. My parents are millionaires. They owned stock. They were not wiped out.
> 
> *I* own stocks, and I wasn't wiped out by 2008. I don't know anyone who was wiped out. When you say dumb stupid ignorant things like this, I start to wonder if you have any intelligence at all? At least with your claims above you can say you were just ignorant.



Uh, guy, I keep a copy of my 401K statement from 2009 pinned to my builliten board.  Just as a reminder to never, ever trust the 1% again.  

It had 60% losses by the time the markets finally bottomed out.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, I keep a copy of my 401K statement from 2009 pinned to my builliten board. Just as a reminder to never, ever trust the 1% again.
> 
> It had 60% losses by the time the markets finally bottomed out



And what are they worth today?


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> *First*.... anyone who claims that the 1% are a parasite, and are not vital to anything..... is an idiot. If that's you, than that is you. If you doubt that the rich are vital, then show me one country.....> ONE COUNTRY < that has expelled all the rich, and driven them away, which has been prosperous.
> 
> Cuba? Nope. Venezuela? Nope. Soviet Union? LOL! Pre-78 China? You are crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuba and Venezuela were poor countries before they adopted communism, and the world proceeded to punish them for doing so.  The USSR came about this close to World Domination.  China went from an improverished country to a superpower.   All without rich people.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> France believed what you said, and has actively pushed an anti-rich policy. Now the country is in an economic emergency. See, when you tell the rich you are going to steal all their wealth, because they are parasites.... they tend to leave. And they did. Now France is in riots and chaos. Well done stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are deluded as to what France is like, but that's okay.  The right likes to pretend the rest of the world only exists as bad examples.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to Reagan, the lower 50% of wage earners, paid over 10% of Federal Taxes. Today they pay less than 4%.
> Prior to Reagan the middle class 50% to 75%, paid 20% of all Federal Taxes. Today it's only 12%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those figures are wrong.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about. My parents are millionaires. They owned stock. They were not wiped out.
> 
> *I* own stocks, and I wasn't wiped out by 2008. I don't know anyone who was wiped out. When you say dumb stupid ignorant things like this, I start to wonder if you have any intelligence at all? At least with your claims above you can say you were just ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, I keep a copy of my 401K statement from 2009 pinned to my builliten board.  Just as a reminder to never, ever trust the 1% again.
> 
> It had 60% losses by the time the markets finally bottomed out.
Click to expand...


Cuba was almost on par with the US standard of living.  Now they are impoverished.  Venezuela was the leading economy in latin America.  Now they are practically a failed state.

The Soviets were never close to world domination.  And what domination they did have, they had only by brutal force.  Not because of economic growth.

China went from an impoverish country to a super power without rich people?  You are insane.  That is the dumbest thing you have said yet.

List of Chinese by net worth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prior to 1978, 63% of the population lived on less than $2 a day.   Now it's much higher, and there is massive inequality.      There are millions of business startups that have billionaires in the center of them.   You are crazy.  Flat out, you don't know what you are talking about.

France Declares State of Economic Emergency

EU on brink: France declares 'state of economic emergency' as Germany faces financial ruin

The euro crisis no one is talking about: France is in free fall

Yeah, we should believe mr internet poster, rather than all of the news networks actually based in Europe, on how France is gem of socialist utopianism.

France industrial unrest: Open-ended strike brings rail misery - BBC News

All you idiots that want to do away with personal transportation in favor of government mass transit, should look at all the workers who can't get to their jobs because the mass transit workers walked off the job.

Yeah, I don't know what France is like.  Apparently all the people in France, leaving the country.... they must know something about it.

Rising number of wealthy French fleeing abroad - France 24

But those are French journalists talking about French people, leaving France.   What the heck do they know, right?  After all we have our resident expert forum poster, right here to tell us how great things really are.   Please continue "JoeBlow".

*Those figures are wrong. Next.*

Not according to the CBO, and the IRS tax data.





I've provided my data and sources to prove my case.  What is your evidence?

*Uh, guy, I keep a copy of my 401K statement from 2009 pinned to my builliten board. Just as a reminder to never, ever trust the 1% again.
It had 60% losses by the time the markets finally bottomed out.*

Are you kidding?

So you sold your stocks, when they were on sale?  You sold your assets when the value was low?   Are you seriously telling me that is what you did?   Yes or no, did you sell off your assets when the price was on sale???

Good heavens fiscal education by the government schools is HORRIBLE.   Why did you do something that stupid???

When the price of gas goes down, do you sell all the gas in your cars tank?  Or buy more?
When the price of food goes down, do you sell everything in your fridge, or buy more?

Why the heck did you sell when the price went down?  You BUY when the price goes down.  No wonder I'm up 35% year over year, and my parents are millionaires, and you are broke.   We were smart, and you were stupid.   Never trust the 1%?????  They didn't tell you to sell moron!  You didn't listen to the 1%!   The 1% was BUYING when the price was on sale, not selling.

I do what the 1% does.  That's why I have more money in my IRA than ever before.   You didn't trust the rich, that's why you sold when they were buying, which is why they are rich, and you are broke.

What no one should trust, is your judgement.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, guy, I keep a copy of my 401K statement from 2009 pinned to my builliten board. Just as a reminder to never, ever trust the 1% again.
> 
> It had 60% losses by the time the markets finally bottomed out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what are they worth today?
Click to expand...


Irrelevent.  I had to cash it out in 2011 to pay medical bills


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Are you kidding?
> 
> So you sold your stocks, when they were on sale? You sold your assets when the value was low? Are you seriously telling me that is what you did? Yes or no, did you sell off your assets when the price was on sale???



Actually, I had to cash part of it out to pay off medical bills in 2011. The rest I had to convert to an IRA that gains no interests.

And that's the point.  I should not be spending my life trying to outsmart the market. They have thousands of little scumwads manipulating the Casino. I have a full time jobs, thanks. I also have a part time business.  I simply don't have time to research markets all day like the parasites do. 




Andylusion said:


> 200 years ago, and James Madison directly warned all of us, about people like you. You should be honored that such an amazing man, had the ability to warn us of tyrant scum like you.



Fuck James Madison. Another Slave-raping asshole.  America isn't great because a bunch of slave raping assholes didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes. America is great because progressives like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, LBJ, MLK made their smarmy talk actually mean something. 

You aren't afraid of socialism, you are afraid of Democracy. Democracy is coming, buddy.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Not according to the CBO, and the IRS tax data.



Ywan, you do realize income tax isn't the only tax collected, right?  That all the other taxes collected hit the working class harder?  Or are you just fucking stupid.  Good thing you inherited money.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Prior to 1978, 63% of the population lived on less than $2 a day. Now it's much higher, and there is massive inequality. There are millions of business startups that have billionaires in the center of them. You are crazy. Flat out, you don't know what you are talking about.



Most of China is still dirt poor. China's economic growth has been due to letting big corporations rape the country in a way they aren't allowed to in the west anymore. China is goingto be a BIG problem when one billion Chinese realize there's nothing "Trickling down".


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Cuba was almost on par with the US standard of living. Now they are impoverished.



No, it wasn't.  Here's what JFK had to say about Pre-revolutionary Cuba.

_*"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country's policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.*_"—U.S. President John F. Kennedy, interview with Jean Daniel, 24 October 1963[27]

Except what we've done is spent 55 years punishing Cuba for rejecting us.

What amazes me is that you praise China, which has a truly horrible human rights record, including persecuting religion,  forcing women to have abortions and executing people to sell their organs, but you are still pissy at Cuba for rejecting us.

And you have the fucking gall to call yourself a "Christian".


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

JoeB131 said:


> Irrelevent. I had to cash it out in 2011 to pay medical bills



Very relevant because most of us that were in the market made a killing when it came back.  For instance my investment company stopped buying shares when the market began to tumble.  They just sat on my employers (and my) contributions.  When it hit bottom, they poured all that money back in.  It was like buying two shares for the price of one.


----------



## JoeB131

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Very relevant because most of us that were in the market made a killing when it came back. For instance my investment company stopped buying shares when the market began to tumble. They just sat on my employers (and my) contributions. When it hit bottom, they poured all that money back in. It was like buying two shares for the price of one.



Guy, so you are rich against this week?  Because you keep flipping back between being so poor you have to go on disability and not being able to afford health insurance to being so rich you just don't know what to do with all your money. 

I can't talk about what the scammers who ran our 401K did, because I don't know.  What I do know is that in 2009, after I was let go from that job because I had run up too many medical bills, they were posting 60% losses. And these were in the "Safe stocks".  

Simply put, I'm not going to bet that I can outsmart the wall street scammers.  I'll take my nice social security, thank you.  And if we can get single payer health care and put the crooked insurance companies out of business, I'm down for that, too.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding?
> 
> So you sold your stocks, when they were on sale? You sold your assets when the value was low? Are you seriously telling me that is what you did? Yes or no, did you sell off your assets when the price was on sale???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I had to cash part of it out to pay off medical bills in 2011. The rest I had to convert to an IRA that gains no interests.
> 
> And that's the point.  I should not be spending my life trying to outsmart the market. They have thousands of little scumwads manipulating the Casino. I have a full time jobs, thanks. I also have a part time business.  I simply don't have time to research markets all day like the parasites do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 200 years ago, and James Madison directly warned all of us, about people like you. You should be honored that such an amazing man, had the ability to warn us of tyrant scum like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck James Madison. Another Slave-raping asshole.  America isn't great because a bunch of slave raping assholes didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes. America is great because progressives like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, LBJ, MLK made their smarmy talk actually mean something.
> 
> You aren't afraid of socialism, you are afraid of Democracy. Democracy is coming, buddy.
Click to expand...


First:  So you cashed it out to pay medical bills.   Whose fault is that?  A: nobodies fault.  Just life.   B: Your fault for not having insurance.  C: Your fault for not having enough insurance.

Notice who isn't on that list?   The wealthy 1%.   Not their fault, no matter how you cut that.

Second:  You claim to have lost 35% of your investment value.  Now you claim you didn't cash anything out until 2011.   Which is it dude?






See a problem with your statement?   By 2011, the market had recovered all that way to only roughly a 10% to 15% drop.   If you did not cash out, you can't possibly have lost 35% of your value.  Not possible.

That drop in 2008, was when I made the most money.  The stocks were on sale.  I bought stocks at almost 50% off.  When they recovered, I made tons.   Of course, I kept my money in the market....  I have health insurance for health care needs.

*LOL.   Dude, YOU should be afraid of Democracy.   Everyone should be afraid of Democracy. *  If 51% of the public thinks they can take everything you own, and leave you a slave.... they can do that and democracy has succeed.   The only people who are not afraid democracy, are fools who think they are the 51%, and the ignorant.

Reminds me of a story of a family in Russia who supported Lenin.   Democracy triumphed over the monarchy.  By the way.... you do know that "Soviet" means "council", right?  That's why they called the "workers councils".... Soviets.

This family in Russia supported the Soviets right up to the very day they were carted away in Stalin's purges.  Suddenly their foolish thinking that they were the 51% ended with a firing squad.  The only reason we know the tale is because the children escaped to tell the world what happen to their pro-democracy parents.

All the freedoms you enjoy today, are only there because the founding fathers of this country feared Democracy.  And they warned us of people like you, and here you are, willing to throw it all away in the name of your ideology.

I can see why you hate the founding fathers of this country, given they have you pegged to the wall.  If your side does win, I wonder if any of your children will survive to tell us of your foolishness.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Andylusion said:


> That drop in 2008, was when I made the most money. The stocks were on sale. I bought stocks at almost 50% off. When they recovered, I made tons. Of course, I kept my money in the market.... I have health insurance for health care needs.



That's exactly what the investment company that handles our retirement accounts did.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> First: So you cashed it out to pay medical bills. Whose fault is that? A: nobodies fault. Just life. B: Your fault for not having insurance. C: Your fault for not having enough insurance.



1) Bush's fault for fucking up the economy.
2) I had insurance, but when i started filing for medical treatment, Cigna and my employer did their level best to get rid of me. 
3) Most insurance sucks.  We just don't find out about it until we get sick. The one thing that my medical adventures cured me of is any republican bullshit. 



Andylusion said:


> Notice who isn't on that list? The wealthy 1%. Not their fault, no matter how you cut that.



Well, yeah, I do totally blame the Rich Jews who owned the company I worked for screwing over their long term employees when the recession hit. 



Andylusion said:


> Second: You claim to have lost 35% of your investment value. Now you claim you didn't cash anything out until 2011. Which is it dude?



I think it was more like 60%, and it never increased back all that much by the time I cashed it out. Keep in mind, I took the SAFE investments, or the ones I told were safe. 



Andylusion said:


> *LOL. Dude, YOU should be afraid of Democracy. Everyone should be afraid of Democracy. * If 51% of the public thinks they can take everything you own, and leave you a slave.... they can do that and democracy has succeed. The only people who are not afraid democracy, are fools who think they are the 51%, and the ignorant.



Yeah, I know. You guys live in terrible fear that the rich might have to follow the same laws the rest of us do. 

Because the last thing you want is to finally have your fantasies about being rich come true, and find out that it's not all that.  

You see, I'd have no problem going back to the Pre-Reagan days when the rich paid 70% taxes and their workforces were unionized. You see, that's how Communism was defeated, by making Capitalism less of a Shit Sandwich.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> First: So you cashed it out to pay medical bills. Whose fault is that? A: nobodies fault. Just life. B: Your fault for not having insurance. C: Your fault for not having enough insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Bush's fault for fucking up the economy.
> 2) I had insurance, but when i started filing for medical treatment, Cigna and my employer did their level best to get rid of me.
> 3) Most insurance sucks.  We just don't find out about it until we get sick. The one thing that my medical adventures cured me of is any republican bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice who isn't on that list? The wealthy 1%. Not their fault, no matter how you cut that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yeah, I do totally blame the Rich Jews who owned the company I worked for screwing over their long term employees when the recession hit.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second: You claim to have lost 35% of your investment value. Now you claim you didn't cash anything out until 2011. Which is it dude?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it was more like 60%, and it never increased back all that much by the time I cashed it out. Keep in mind, I took the SAFE investments, or the ones I told were safe.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL. Dude, YOU should be afraid of Democracy. Everyone should be afraid of Democracy. * If 51% of the public thinks they can take everything you own, and leave you a slave.... they can do that and democracy has succeed. The only people who are not afraid democracy, are fools who think they are the 51%, and the ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know. You guys live in terrible fear that the rich might have to follow the same laws the rest of us do.
> 
> Because the last thing you want is to finally have your fantasies about being rich come true, and find out that it's not all that.
> 
> You see, I'd have no problem going back to the Pre-Reagan days when the rich paid 70% taxes and their workforces were unionized. You see, that's how Communism was defeated, by making Capitalism less of a Shit Sandwich.
Click to expand...


As I have posted before, the sub-prime boom, and the price bubble that popped, started in 1997.  Trying to blame shift to a president who wasn't in office, when the boom and bubble started, is not logical.

You are not owed anything by the company, simply because you worked there, and got paid.   Unless you are telling me they screwed you out of your agreed wage.   I don't know where this idea came from, that if you get sick, your employer is obligated to pay someone who isn't working.

You are not owed anything dude.   Funny how you talk about me in a fantasy, when you are the one angry that your myth didn't come true.

*Safe investments?    Safe investments don't make any money.*   If you wanted safe, you should have kept your money at a local bank.   Then you can complain everyone is getting rich, while your money sits not earning any interest.

Even so, your story still doesn't add up.   If you invested in "safe" investments, like bonds, then most of the bond funds barely lost 10%, and recovered within a year. 





The Bond Fund of America, recovered 100% of it's lost value, by the end of 2009.  If you didn't cash out until 2011, you can't possibly have lost a single penny. 

I don't know what you did, but what you are describing isn't possible.   None of the so-called safe funds, did as badly as stocks did.   And most, if not all, recovered in a short time span.

The only way you lost 35%, or 60% is if you were not invested in safer funds, and you sold your stocks at the bottom of the market.   The exact opposite of what the rich tell you to do.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, I know. You guys live in terrible fear that the rich might have to follow the same laws the rest of us do.
> 
> Because the last thing you want is to finally have your fantasies about being rich come true, and find out that it's not all that.
> 
> You see, I'd have no problem going back to the Pre-Reagan days when the rich paid 70% taxes and their workforces were unionized. You see, that's how Communism was defeated, by making Capitalism less of a Shit Sandwich.



Making up crap again?   Yeah you guys live in terrible fear, that you can't make the rich give you their money, and that you can't violate their property rights because you are greedy and driven by envy.    

The rich did not pay 70% in taxes.  They never did.   Who in their right mind, is going to earn money to pay 70% of it in taxes?    That's why the rich paid less of the tax bill prior to the 1980s, than they do today.   Statistical fact.

And as far as fantasies, you are the one living in the myth that you are not the rich.   YOU are the rich.  YOU are the 1% of the world.   Not me.   The irony is, if you actually got your way, people like me, would be taking your retirement from you.   Leftism is a mental illness, that destroys the host of the illness.  You are a prefect example of exactly that.

Look at Venezuela, and Greece, and France.   All your anti-rich policies resulted in the biggest supporters of those policies, being destroyed and suffering from those policies.   The poor in Venezuela today, are lucky if they food, let alone electricity.... but you sure stuck it to the rich....or did you.... because they seem to have left the country.  Only the poor and impoverished are left to starve.   Good job suicide left-ists.   Jim Jones would be proud to serve your koolade.


----------



## westwall

Arianrhod said:


> Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey
> 
> Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?











Great.  A plane fly's around the world and takes MONTHS to accomplish the goal.  I could fly around the world in my Bonanza in a couple of weeks with complete safety.  These guys put their lives in danger to accomplish their stunt, for stunt it was.  As a technology demonstrator it's a failure.  The idea of a tech demonstrator is to highlight a new more efficient way of doing things.

This did nothing of the sort.  Instead it showed that you can spend a ridiculous amount of money to build an aircraft that requires and entire team of people to keep on mission.  That risked the lives of its pilots with every takeoff and landing, that required them to not sleep for DAYS at a time, with the concurrent loss of attention and fine motor skills which further endangers the aircraft.

And, to top it off, it is useless as a passenger carrying aircraft.  It can NEVER lift more than a single person into the air.  No matter how big you make the plane that is the simple reality.  Solar power is cute as an advertising scheme, but other than that in the aviation field it is worthless.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> As I have posted before, the sub-prime boom, and the price bubble that popped, started in 1997. Trying to blame shift to a president who wasn't in office, when the boom and bubble started, is not logical.



again, Bush was the guy who appointed porn-watching regulators who did nothing to curb the excesses.  

The boom wasn't the problem, it was the banks selling those mortgages as investments that was the problem.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Making up crap again? Yeah you guys live in terrible fear, that you can't make the rich give you their money, and that you can't violate their property rights because you are greedy and driven by envy.
> 
> The rich did not pay 70% in taxes. They never did. Who in their right mind, is going to earn money to pay 70% of it in taxes? That's why the rich paid less of the tax bill prior to the 1980s, than they do today. Statistical fact.



again, lying with statistics. Income taxes on the rich went down, all the other taxes on the rest of us went up.  the rich got richer, the poor got poorer.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making up crap again? Yeah you guys live in terrible fear, that you can't make the rich give you their money, and that you can't violate their property rights because you are greedy and driven by envy.
> 
> The rich did not pay 70% in taxes. They never did. Who in their right mind, is going to earn money to pay 70% of it in taxes? That's why the rich paid less of the tax bill prior to the 1980s, than they do today. Statistical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, lying with statistics. Income taxes on the rich went down, all the other taxes on the rest of us went up.  the rich got richer, the poor got poorer.
Click to expand...








No one paid 90% dummy.  There were so many tax deductions that the real rate was closer to 18% for the wealthy.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have posted before, the sub-prime boom, and the price bubble that popped, started in 1997. Trying to blame shift to a president who wasn't in office, when the boom and bubble started, is not logical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, Bush was the guy who appointed porn-watching regulators who did nothing to curb the excesses.
> 
> The boom wasn't the problem, it was the banks selling those mortgages as investments that was the problem.
Click to expand...


This is like going to a doctor that gives you a lethal injection of a virus and morphine.   So every time you feel great and the symptoms of the virus don't appear for years.  Then you get a new doctor, and the virus starts affecting you.

Instead of blaming the doctor that give you the lethal injection, you blame the new doctor for not curing the virus that he didn't give you.

You are living with a myth.  All left-ism is based on myths, and this myth is that somehow Bush could magically have prevented a bubble, that already existed, years before he came into office.

An economic bubble is like a soap bubble being blown up with air.  If you do nothing the bubble pops, if you do something the bubble pops.  Either way, the bubble is going to pop.   Soap bubbles pop, that's what they do.

The moment that Bush did anything to 'curb excesses' the bubble would pop.   Economic bubbles only survive on continuous investing into the bubble.  The moment investing into the bubble is curbed, the bubble will pop.

Now the fact is, the vast majority of government, especially on the left-wing side, believed that lowering lending standards was a benefit.  That increasing home ownership was inherently a plus.  Pual Krugman supported the housing bubble.  Bill Clinton supported the housing bubble.   Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Franklin Raines (who was appointed by Bill Clinton), Barnie Frank, Gregory Meeks, and the list of pro-housing bubble people in Washington was endless.

None of them believed that there was a problem in the Housing market.  None of them did.  Frank famously declared there was no bubble at all, in 2005. 

Now what exactly did you expect Bush to do?   Do you think Bush is a dictator that can just demand everything change, in complete disregard to Congress which believed there was no problem?

And if Bush did.... and the bubble popped, and the economy crashed (which it would have), then what?  You, and all your left-wing idiots, would be claiming there was nothing wrong, and Bush blew up the economy for no reason.

We both know that's true.   You and me, right now, on this forum, we both know that if Bush had popped the housing bubble in 2004, or earlier, you would be right here, screaming that Bush screwed up the economy, and there was no housing bubble at all.    Don't lie to me on this.  I know better.  Don't even try to tell me that if Bush blew up the economy in 2004, you'd be here talking about what a great job he did in stopping the housing bubble.  You would be screaming that there was no bubble, and Bush just messed everything up.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making up crap again? Yeah you guys live in terrible fear, that you can't make the rich give you their money, and that you can't violate their property rights because you are greedy and driven by envy.
> 
> The rich did not pay 70% in taxes. They never did. Who in their right mind, is going to earn money to pay 70% of it in taxes? That's why the rich paid less of the tax bill prior to the 1980s, than they do today. Statistical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, lying with statistics. Income taxes on the rich went down, all the other taxes on the rest of us went up.  the rich got richer, the poor got poorer.
Click to expand...


And yet, the rich now pay the greatest portion of all income tax revenue.





The top 1% of this country, in the 1970s to early 1980s, under your 70% tax rate, paid less than 20% of all income tax.

Today, under our 35% tax rate, they now pay 40%.

No matter how you cut it, the rich are shouldering more of the tax burden today under lower tax rates, than they did under your higher tax rates.

Just a fact.

And there are numerous examples of how dumb your higher tax rate is.   Ronald Reagan famously would work during the year, just long enough to reach the higher marginal tax rate, and then quit for the rest of the year.  Why work, when $70 out of every $100 would be stolen by the government?   So he would go home to his ranch, and ride his horses, and you the poor would shoulder more of the tax burden, because he simply didn't earn any money for you to tax away.

And this is true today.   

For example.   If you were to jack up taxes back to 70%, do you know who wouldn't pay even one single penny more in taxes?

Mark Zuckerburg
Larry Ellison
Meg Whitman
Warren Buffet
The Waltons... any of them as far as I know.

Need more?  There are dozens.  Hundreds in fact.   All with low salaries, that would not have to pay one penny more in tax, if you jacked up the tax rates.

And why is that?   Warren Buffet only has a $100,000 a year salary.     Your top marginal tax rate, only affects earnings over $466,000 a year. 

You jack up the tax rates, and thousands of CEOs will drop their pay to Warren Buffets level, and you'll get less taxes from them, than you do right now.

That is exactly what we see in the data from the 1970s, and the 70% tax rates.  As the tax levels came down, more and more rich and wealthy brought more money home, and were willing to pay the taxes.   You just that tax rate up, and fewer and fewer will take the hit, which will force the poor and low-income groups to shoulder more of the burden.

Your greed and envy and hate, has blinded you to the facts and realities of life.    That's why every country that has gone down the greed and envy path, has destroyed itself.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> No one paid 90% dummy. There were so many tax deductions that the real rate was closer to 18% for the wealthy.



Link?


----------



## Old Rocks

Andylusion said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making up crap again? Yeah you guys live in terrible fear, that you can't make the rich give you their money, and that you can't violate their property rights because you are greedy and driven by envy.
> 
> The rich did not pay 70% in taxes. They never did. Who in their right mind, is going to earn money to pay 70% of it in taxes? That's why the rich paid less of the tax bill prior to the 1980s, than they do today. Statistical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, lying with statistics. Income taxes on the rich went down, all the other taxes on the rest of us went up.  the rich got richer, the poor got poorer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, the rich now pay the greatest portion of all income tax revenue.
> 
> View attachment 78168
> 
> The top 1% of this country, in the 1970s to early 1980s, under your 70% tax rate, paid less than 20% of all income tax.
> 
> Today, under our 35% tax rate, they now pay 40%.
> 
> No matter how you cut it, the rich are shouldering more of the tax burden today under lower tax rates, than they did under your higher tax rates.
> 
> Just a fact.
> 
> And there are numerous examples of how dumb your higher tax rate is.   Ronald Reagan famously would work during the year, just long enough to reach the higher marginal tax rate, and then quit for the rest of the year.  Why work, when $70 out of every $100 would be stolen by the government?   So he would go home to his ranch, and ride his horses, and you the poor would shoulder more of the tax burden, because he simply didn't earn any money for you to tax away.
> 
> And this is true today.
> 
> For example.   If you were to jack up taxes back to 70%, do you know who wouldn't pay even one single penny more in taxes?
> 
> Mark Zuckerburg
> Larry Ellison
> Meg Whitman
> Warren Buffet
> The Waltons... any of them as far as I know.
> 
> Need more?  There are dozens.  Hundreds in fact.   All with low salaries, that would not have to pay one penny more in tax, if you jacked up the tax rates.
> 
> And why is that?   Warren Buffet only has a $100,000 a year salary.     Your top marginal tax rate, only affects earnings over $466,000 a year.
> 
> You jack up the tax rates, and thousands of CEOs will drop their pay to Warren Buffets level, and you'll get less taxes from them, than you do right now.
> 
> That is exactly what we see in the data from the 1970s, and the 70% tax rates.  As the tax levels came down, more and more rich and wealthy brought more money home, and were willing to pay the taxes.   You just that tax rate up, and fewer and fewer will take the hit, which will force the poor and low-income groups to shoulder more of the burden.
> 
> Your greed and envy and hate, has blinded you to the facts and realities of life.    That's why every country that has gone down the greed and envy path, has destroyed itself.
Click to expand...

Very interesting graph. So, the very rich are paying far less percentage in income but more of the tax total. That tell's me that they are getting far more of the total package of income than they have in the past.


----------



## Andylusion

Old Rocks said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making up crap again? Yeah you guys live in terrible fear, that you can't make the rich give you their money, and that you can't violate their property rights because you are greedy and driven by envy.
> 
> The rich did not pay 70% in taxes. They never did. Who in their right mind, is going to earn money to pay 70% of it in taxes? That's why the rich paid less of the tax bill prior to the 1980s, than they do today. Statistical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, lying with statistics. Income taxes on the rich went down, all the other taxes on the rest of us went up.  the rich got richer, the poor got poorer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, the rich now pay the greatest portion of all income tax revenue.
> 
> View attachment 78168
> 
> The top 1% of this country, in the 1970s to early 1980s, under your 70% tax rate, paid less than 20% of all income tax.
> 
> Today, under our 35% tax rate, they now pay 40%.
> 
> No matter how you cut it, the rich are shouldering more of the tax burden today under lower tax rates, than they did under your higher tax rates.
> 
> Just a fact.
> 
> And there are numerous examples of how dumb your higher tax rate is.   Ronald Reagan famously would work during the year, just long enough to reach the higher marginal tax rate, and then quit for the rest of the year.  Why work, when $70 out of every $100 would be stolen by the government?   So he would go home to his ranch, and ride his horses, and you the poor would shoulder more of the tax burden, because he simply didn't earn any money for you to tax away.
> 
> And this is true today.
> 
> For example.   If you were to jack up taxes back to 70%, do you know who wouldn't pay even one single penny more in taxes?
> 
> Mark Zuckerburg
> Larry Ellison
> Meg Whitman
> Warren Buffet
> The Waltons... any of them as far as I know.
> 
> Need more?  There are dozens.  Hundreds in fact.   All with low salaries, that would not have to pay one penny more in tax, if you jacked up the tax rates.
> 
> And why is that?   Warren Buffet only has a $100,000 a year salary.     Your top marginal tax rate, only affects earnings over $466,000 a year.
> 
> You jack up the tax rates, and thousands of CEOs will drop their pay to Warren Buffets level, and you'll get less taxes from them, than you do right now.
> 
> That is exactly what we see in the data from the 1970s, and the 70% tax rates.  As the tax levels came down, more and more rich and wealthy brought more money home, and were willing to pay the taxes.   You just that tax rate up, and fewer and fewer will take the hit, which will force the poor and low-income groups to shoulder more of the burden.
> 
> Your greed and envy and hate, has blinded you to the facts and realities of life.    That's why every country that has gone down the greed and envy path, has destroyed itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very interesting graph. So, the very rich are paying far less percentage in income but more of the tax total. That tell's me that they are getting far more of the total package of income than they have in the past.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is exactly true.   There are numerous ways in which the rich got fringe benefits that would either be untaxed, or less taxed.

I remember a specifically old story about I believe a Mining company, that had large mansion properties at each of it's mines.   The claim was that it was company property for administration use, which in reality was nothing more than multiple vacation homes for the CEO, and top executives.   This was really old, like 1940s and such.

In reality it was an indirect unpaid compensation for executives.   A practice still done by many companies.   Melvin Gordon of the Tootsie-roll company, racked up $1.2 Million in Private Corporate Jet expenses.   Of course that's tax free.

Some companies own their own private resorts, which executives can use without cost, and of course without taxes.   Others have personal "ranches" out in nowhere.   Apparently I've read that some cattle ranches in the mid-west are openly willing to sell out to a corporation under contract, because then even if they have a bad year cattle-wise, they get a steady income from corporations, and all they have to do in entertain a few executives when they show up.

Then there are other options as well.  The most obvious example is stock options.  But you can also have restricted stocks, which can grow almost tax free for a number of years.

Another option is deferred income, which you are owed, but you simply don't take.  The company can then use the money to invest, and that grows tax free.   Worse if you have the money transferred to an IRA, and then to a trust fund, the money might never be taxed at all.    Now of course you can't ever use the money directly, but you can live the rest of your life, retired at 55, living on the dividends from your investments, which would be as little as..... $200,000 a year, and never pay the top marginal tax rate.

And let's not even bother getting into the complexities of buying international property, and hiding assets over seas.   You would pay the taxes in those countries, instead of the US taxes.... but.... many countries have a much lower top marginal rate than the US.

But back to your point... yes, that is exactly right.  When the tax rate goes too high, people stop taking cash payments, and instead opt for alternative compensation, or even reduced compensation for less work.   GE famously announced that executives no longer had any restriction on the number of paid-leave days they could have.

Would it be worth it to get paid a million less in salary to avoid 39% tax rates, and as compensation have unlimited paid time off?   That would work for me.

See the only reason we have people that are taking home $2 Million in cash today, is because it's still worth it to most at 39% tax rates.

You jack the taxes up to 70%..... would it still be worth it?  Or would company owned vacation resorts in Panama be an attractive alternative?   Hmmmm?


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one paid 90% dummy. There were so many tax deductions that the real rate was closer to 18% for the wealthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Sigh.... I would have assumed that you would know this without a link.

Very well.




Over all, the rate was about 21% roughly.  It did drop to 18%, but that was 1946 or 47, when the top rate fell under 90%.

But the bottom line is that his basic point was 100% correct.   Contrary to your foolish left-wing utopianism, the wealthy have never.... as in NEVER.... paid the top marginal rate, or anything close.  They never paid 90% of their income, or 80%, or 70% or 60% or 50% or 40%, and in fact, the effective tax rate on the wealthy has never been over 35%.    It close in the late 1970s, early 80s, but I wager that was only an effect of the inflation.

Leftism is a belief in myths and legends.   The fairy tales of ages past when the rich paid for everything you morons wanted.  But it never happened.   You people look at top marginal rates as if it means something.

The tax rate is almost meaningless, because people can find ways to avoid every tax.   The higher the tax, the fewer people are willing to pay it.

You do realize that people earning just $37,000 or less, are supposed to be paying 25% in taxes.... right?   And yet.... we know that 47% of the public pays ZERO income tax.   It's funny how that fact doesn't surprise you, but your shocked that no one pays the top marginal rate either.  

Rates don't matter.   You can make the top marginal rate 100% if your are that dumb, it still won't matter.  People won't pay your tax rates if they are too high.  Look at Greece.  They have some of the highest tax rates in the EU.  By your logic they should be the richest country on Earth.  Instead they are ruined.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Rates don't matter. You can make the top marginal rate 100% if your are that dumb, it still won't matter. People won't pay your tax rates if they are too high. Look at Greece. They have some of the highest tax rates in the EU. By your logic they should be the richest country on Earth. Instead they are ruined.



if rates don't matter, why are you whining?


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rates don't matter. You can make the top marginal rate 100% if your are that dumb, it still won't matter. People won't pay your tax rates if they are too high. Look at Greece. They have some of the highest tax rates in the EU. By your logic they should be the richest country on Earth. Instead they are ruined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if rates don't matter, why are you whining?
Click to expand...






Why are you so stupid?  Riddle us that batman.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> Why are you so stupid? Riddle us that batman.



You're the one who is SOOOOOOO concerned Daddy Warbucks can't afford another dancing horse....


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you so stupid? Riddle us that batman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who is SOOOOOOO concerned Daddy Warbucks can't afford another dancing horse....
Click to expand...






No, I care about the poor and middle class who you wish to consign to the dark with your retarded energy ideas.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> No, I care about the poor and middle class who you wish to consign to the dark with your retarded energy ideas.



oH, were we talking about energy?  I thought we moved on to taxes. 

Okay, let's talk energy.   Renewables- great idea.  Even if fossil fuels weren't destroying the planet, we only have a finite amount of them.  

I also have no problem with nuclear power, if we finally decide what part of the country we want to contaminate for the next 10,000 years with the expended fuel.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rates don't matter. You can make the top marginal rate 100% if your are that dumb, it still won't matter. People won't pay your tax rates if they are too high. Look at Greece. They have some of the highest tax rates in the EU. By your logic they should be the richest country on Earth. Instead they are ruined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if rates don't matter, why are you whining?
Click to expand...


Because the effective tax rate does.  As you jack up the rates, then the rich refuse to take as much in cash, resulting in less and less revenue.

In short, the exact problem that you don't want, is exactly the result your policy position has.

And there is another problem.

When rich people take their compensation in non-cash, the results are there is less investment in the country.

Take the example before, of Steve Jobs.   He got $10 Million, which he used to invest in Pixar.

Now let's imagine a counter factual.   Pretend that in the year the tax rate was 70% or 90%, and Steve Jobs never got the $10 Million, because it was taxed away, and given to special interest groups, and hydrogen cars, and Solyndra.

Now, without that $10 Million, would Jobs have even been able to buy Pixar?  Not likely.  Without that $10 Million, would have had millions to invest into Pixar, and create over 600 high paying, high level jobs?  Nope.

So in short, your system of taxation will hurt literally everyone in the entire country, except the super wealthy.

See, what is more likely, is that Steve Jobs would have taken compensation in investments or perks.... so he still would have benefited, but there never would have been a Pixar, or high tech jobs, or anything else that he created in the historical reality.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I care about the poor and middle class who you wish to consign to the dark with your retarded energy ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oH, were we talking about energy?  I thought we moved on to taxes.
> 
> Okay, let's talk energy.   Renewables- great idea.  Even if fossil fuels weren't destroying the planet, we only have a finite amount of them.
> 
> I also have no problem with nuclear power, if we finally decide what part of the country we want to contaminate for the next 10,000 years with the expended fuel.
Click to expand...


Yeah, tell that to the 30 Million people in Venezuela that are impoverished and living in the dark, because they have "green-energy", and nuclear is so bad, so the government invested in wind mills, instead of real power.   What was the leading economy in all of latin America, suffering nation wide black outs, even though they have most energy resources in the world.

On top of that, the only reason we even have any real nuclear "waste" is because the US government refuses to allow companies to reprocess spent fuel rods, so that they can be sued again.  And the reason we have that asinine law, is because of left-wing anti-nuke morons who said doing so could cause nuclear proliferation.    So instead we have to bury perfectly good nuclear fuel in the ground to satisfy left-wing stupidity.

If the left-wing was allowed to have their way, the advancement of America's energy, would be to issue the public candles.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Because the effective tax rate does. As you jack up the rates, then the rich refuse to take as much in cash, resulting in less and less revenue.
> 
> In short, the exact problem that you don't want, is exactly the result your policy position has.



Yeah, whatever.  

"Oh, Papa, I wanted another Dressage Horsie,but you are taking in less cash." 

Bullshit.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Yeah, tell that to the 30 Million people in Venezuela that are impoverished and living in the dark, because they have "green-energy", and nuclear is so bad, so the government invested in wind mills, instead of real power. What was the leading economy in all of latin America, suffering nation wide black outs, even though they have most energy resources in the world.



Venezuela has problems because the rest of the world is punishing it for rejecting Corporatism. How dare working people demand the rich pay their fair share.


----------



## westwall

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, tell that to the 30 Million people in Venezuela that are impoverished and living in the dark, because they have "green-energy", and nuclear is so bad, so the government invested in wind mills, instead of real power. What was the leading economy in all of latin America, suffering nation wide black outs, even though they have most energy resources in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela has problems because the rest of the world is punishing it for rejecting Corporatism. How dare working people demand the rich pay their fair share.
Click to expand...







This post more than any other simply proves what a complete moron who is completely detached from reality you are.  Venezuela is collapsing because Chavez so alienated every business in the country they left because he felt he could get by on a single product, oil, which the government controlled completely.  He has been proven to be wrong, as is anyone who ever places all their eggs in one basket.  Eventually the basket falls over.  This is what socialism looks like stupid boy.  It ALWAYS fails in the end because the smart, productive people leave, and you are left with the lazy, non producing morons, like you.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, tell that to the 30 Million people in Venezuela that are impoverished and living in the dark, because they have "green-energy", and nuclear is so bad, so the government invested in wind mills, instead of real power. What was the leading economy in all of latin America, suffering nation wide black outs, even though they have most energy resources in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela has problems because the rest of the world is punishing it for rejecting Corporatism. How dare working people demand the rich pay their fair share.
Click to expand...


You can lie if you want to, to justify your mythical world.... but the rest of us know better.    The reason Venezuela produces less and less oil every year when they have the most known oil reserves in the world, is because they socialized all the oil properties, and all the big oil companies pulled out.  As anyone would.

And the reason they don't have any electricity is because they built wind mills instead of using the 8th largest reserves in the world, of natural gas to produce power.

And the reason they don't have food, is because they stole all the land from their own farmers, and gave it to poor people, who couldn't farm it.

You can lie all you want, liar boy.... but that just makes you childish, and moronic.  So keep on lying you dirty bag.


----------



## Old Rocks

Here we have the example of the wingnuts, including Mr. Westwall, using an example of the worst cases of governance, and ignoring the success of nations like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and France. Democratic Socialism has worked in most of the Western Democracies.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Here we have the example of the wingnuts, including Mr. Westwall, using an example of the worst cases of governance, and ignoring the success of nations like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and France. Democratic Socialism has worked in most of the Western Democracies.







Last time I checked the EU was in dire straits financially wise.  The only reason why Sweden and Denmark are doing well is because they have small populations and in Denmark's case shiploads of oil revenue.


----------



## Andylusion

Old Rocks said:


> Here we have the example of the wingnuts, including Mr. Westwall, using an example of the worst cases of governance, and ignoring the success of nations like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and France. Democratic Socialism has worked in most of the Western Democracies.



Germany is highly capitalist.   Anyone who claims that that Germany is anything other than a right-wing capitalist based system (economically speaking) is crazy.  You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Denmark is also highly capitalist based, by any measure.  Nothing left-wing about them.

As for Sweden and Norway.  It depends on what you want.   The irony is, nearly everyone in the US, could live the life you find in Sweden and Norway, pretty easily.

For example....

*Barely 38% of men and women in Urban areas own cars*.   They just walk, and take public transport.

So sell your home and car, and go live in the city.  Take the bus and train to get around.

(Mis)Adventures in Swedish Laundry

*Most Swedes don't even have washers and driers*.   Most have to use a communal laundry room, where you are issued a time slot, and you must use it during that time slot, and be finished before the person for the next time slot shows up.    Moreover, while some have driers, others simply have racks, and you lay your clothes on the racks, until they are dry.

So sell your washer and drier, and start laying your clothes out on racks.

*Oh and about that house size*.  The average size of a home, per capita in Sweden?  430 Sq Ft.   My Condo that I bought for $60,000, is 900 Sq Ft, and has a full basement and two up stairs bedrooms.   My first Apartment that was $360 a month, was larger than 430 Sq Ft.

So go buy a home the size of my first apartment, in the inner city, and walk to work, and you too, can have a life style of Sweden and Norway.   You live as frugally as those people, and you'll have money coming out your ears.

*Oh by the way, about that wage?*   Yeah the average wage in the US is $50K a year.  The average wage in Sweden is $37K a year, and they have higher taxes than we do.    So yes, the ultra low wage in Sweden is higher, that's true.  Your entry level job is going to pay more than in the US, but your low wage, will stay lower in Sweden for the rest of your entire life, and you'll keep less of that lower wage than you do here.

I'm thinking you could buy an awful lot of health insurance for that $13,000 a year difference in pay.

*Lastly, I sure hope you intend to cook your own food for life*...  A big mac at McDonalds will set you back $10... bring your own drink and fries.

The Travel guide suggests that you set aside $30 per person, per meal in Sweden, and Denmark is worse.   You want to have the life style of either, you better plan to eat out almost never.

Comparing the US to Sweden and Denmark, is ridiculous, unless you really want to lower your standards of living, and quite frankly, you can do that easily, without adopting any policy changes in Washington.  Just live like a peasant, and you'll have more money than you can dream of, and achieve the lower standard of living that is Sweden and Denmark.   Living the way they do, you'll have more than enough money for "Parental leave" and "Health Care", and still have thousands left over.

*And finally... France.... don't make me laugh*.  France is a joke.

Protests all over the place.  Petrol Shortages.  Riots in the streets.  They just had another terror attack.  They declared an economic emergency.   Every left-wing policy they have pushed, and failed miserably.     Citing France as an example you want us to follow, is equal to suggesting we commit national suicide.


----------



## JoeB131

westwall said:


> This post more than any other simply proves what a complete moron who is completely detached from reality you are. Venezuela is collapsing because Chavez so alienated every business in the country they left because he felt he could get by on a single product, oil, which the government controlled completely



Chavez Died 3 years ago. I think you can stop kicking his corpse now.  

So your view is we should put up with the abuses of the rich because they will punish us if we don't?  Is this your point of view, guy?  That's the point of view of a slave. 

Maybe you should ask yourself why the people of Venezuela elected Chavez and his successor to start with....


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Germany is highly capitalist. Anyone who claims that that Germany is anything other than a right-wing capitalist based system (economically speaking) is crazy. You simply don't know what you are talking about.



Germany has - 

Universal Health Care
A strong social safety net.
A pretty liberal criminal justice system (no Death Penalty, only incarcerates 78,000 people compared to 2 million in the US)
They have unions that have a lot more power than American Unions have. 

No, guy, economically speaking, Germany is a American Liberal's wet dream.  

And a Conservatard's nightmare.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> You can lie if you want to, to justify your mythical world.... but the rest of us know better. The reason Venezuela produces less and less oil every year when they have the most known oil reserves in the world, is because they socialized all the oil properties, and all the big oil companies pulled out. As anyone would.



so again, your view is that we should let big corporations abuse us because they will punish us if we don't? 

Do you like being a house negro?


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany is highly capitalist. Anyone who claims that that Germany is anything other than a right-wing capitalist based system (economically speaking) is crazy. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany has -
> 
> Universal Health Care
> A strong social safety net.
> A pretty liberal criminal justice system (no Death Penalty, only incarcerates 78,000 people compared to 2 million in the US)
> They have unions that have a lot more power than American Unions have.
> 
> No, guy, economically speaking, Germany is a American Liberal's wet dream.
> 
> And a Conservatard's nightmare.
Click to expand...



Your lazy ass wouldn't last one second in a German union.I know I am half German and worked for a U.S. German company before.

You have no fucking idea when it comes to Germany .


.


----------



## JoeB131

bear513 said:


> Your lazy ass wouldn't last one second in a German union.I know I am half German and worked for a U.S. German company before.
> 
> You have no fucking idea when it comes to Germany .



I'm half German, and I've worked for British and Japanese companies as well as American.  I'd do just fine in a German Union.  

Now, here's the thing, I do think that American Unions have their problems. But they are better than the alternative. 

I've seen people fired for being gay, fired for getting pregnant, fired for having medical issues, fired because their ex-girlfriend started sleeping with a manager. And that's the shit I know about, there's probably a lot more than I don't.


----------



## there4eyeM

Why does anybody shill for big oil?


----------



## Wyatt earp

JoeB131 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lazy ass wouldn't last one second in a German union.I know I am half German and worked for a U.S. German company before.
> 
> You have no fucking idea when it comes to Germany .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm half German, and I've worked for British and Japanese companies as well as American.  I'd do just fine in a German Union.
> 
> Now, here's the thing, I do think that American Unions have their problems. But they are better than the alternative.
> 
> I've seen people fired for being gay, fired for getting pregnant, fired for having medical issues, fired because their ex-girlfriend started sleeping with a manager. And that's the shit I know about, there's probably a lot more than I don't.
Click to expand...


My ass you are...no way in he'll with your crappy ass work ethnic and attitude would you last one second in a German run company.


.


----------



## Andylusion

there4eyeM said:


> Why does anybody shill for big oil?



Oh gee... let's see... why would anyone support big oil?  Huh....   




 

This is a tiny list of the hundreds of thousands of things made from oil, that big oil companies produce.

Now tell me... what has the left-wing that hates big oil.... what have they produced?   Solyndra?  Hydrogen Cars?   EV-1?   The Chevy Volt no one drives?   I'd be hard pressed to find anything the left has produced, that has made my life better.

Oil....Pretty much everything?  The left has done nothing but harm society.  Oil has created our entire civilization.   So why would anyone shill for oil?    Because we enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, and Oil has been a key feature in that.

The better question is why the left is not a shill for oil, when the only reason they enjoy their luxury lifestyle is due to oil.


----------



## there4eyeM

Non sequitur.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your lazy ass wouldn't last one second in a German union.I know I am half German and worked for a U.S. German company before.
> 
> You have no fucking idea when it comes to Germany .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm half German, and I've worked for British and Japanese companies as well as American.  I'd do just fine in a German Union.
> 
> Now, here's the thing, I do think that American Unions have their problems. But they are better than the alternative.
> 
> I've seen people fired for being gay, fired for getting pregnant, fired for having medical issues, fired because their ex-girlfriend started sleeping with a manager. And that's the shit I know about, there's probably a lot more than I don't.
Click to expand...


German Unions are pro-corporation.    American Unions are anti-corporation.   German Unions work to make the company profitable.   American Union work to drive the company into bankruptcy.

If you went into a German Union, with your anti-company attitude that you have displayed here... you wouldn't be there long.

Also, it's always amazing to meet some hypocrite who would scream and yell when someone else is doing something, but we both you know you do the same thing if you were the one in charge.

I worked at a company that 'fired' someone for medical issues.   And honestly... you can't pay people to not work.    The money to pay wages, comes from work.  It's not the magic money tree in the back yard.   If you don't work, how do you expect the employer to pay you?

Some guy shows up at your house offering to seal your drive way, and blacktop it.   You agree, and then he shows up, hits his toe with a hammer, and then shows up the next day with a doctors notice "This guy can't work", but you are still expected to pay him for the job he didn't do?

All of you left-wingers, if that happened, you wouldn't pay him.    But the moment it's some business, or company somewhere, that has an employee that smacks his hand with a stapler, suddenly they should pay them for not working.

You all are hypocrites.  The entire left-wing ideology, is the universal ideology of hypocrisy.


----------



## JoeB131

bear513 said:


> My ass you are...no way in he'll with your crappy ass work ethnic and attitude would you last one second in a German run company.



You don't know a darn thing about my work ethic, guy, and I'm probably more successful than you are. (Seriously, your picture just screams "white Trash")

I'd do just fine at a German company. I kind of like where I am at, though.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> German Unions are pro-corporation. American Unions are anti-corporation. German Unions work to make the company profitable. American Union work to drive the company into bankruptcy.



Are you some kind of a retard?  Germany Unions have a say in who the CEO of the company is. German work councils can cancel or stop projects and policies. And, oh, yeah, German Auto Workers make more than American Auto Workers. 

In fact, when the UAW tried to organize a Volkswagen Plant down in JesusLand, (my loving name for the backward ass, white trash, third world red states that keep this country from truly progressing) VW was fine with it. Who wasn't fine with it?  The dumb-ass rednecks who run that state.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> German Unions are pro-corporation. American Unions are anti-corporation. German Unions work to make the company profitable. American Union work to drive the company into bankruptcy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of a retard?  Germany Unions have a say in who the CEO of the company is. German work councils can cancel or stop projects and policies. And, oh, yeah, German Auto Workers make more than American Auto Workers.
> 
> In fact, when the UAW tried to organize a Volkswagen Plant down in JesusLand, (my loving name for the backward ass, white trash, third world red states that keep this country from truly progressing) VW was fine with it. Who wasn't fine with it?  The dumb-ass rednecks who run that state.
Click to expand...


How non-judgemental and egalitarian of you. 

*To everyone else who might read this.....*

Let this be a lesson to every single one of you, about what the left-wing is really about.   They talk about being equal, and standing for the poor, and not being discriminatory... but this right here, is the how they really think.   They consider everyone else "backward ass" and "white trust" and "third world red states" and "JesusLand".    That how the left really looks at people who are poorer, or less educated, or not as "enlightened" as they are.

To a left-winger, everyone who doesn't agree with them, is just pond scum.

So every time you hear a left-winger talk about how they care about the poor, or downtrodden... just remember this left-wingers post.  This is what they really think.

*Back to you....*

German Unions don't really have a say in who is CEO.   And German unions are extremely pro-corporation.    By the way, IG Metall was against the UAW unionizing.   They wanted work councils, like they have in Germany, that are pro-corporation.   When UAW first tried to Unionize, IG Metall actually walked away from the talks.  That should tell you a lot.  By the way, one thing the Pro-Union people never talk about, is that Worker's Councils in Germany, are not inherently union.  30% or more have no Union affiliation. 

Volkswagen works council and IG Metall back executive bonuses - World Socialist Web Site

You can verify this information anywhere, but I find it fitting this should come from the pro-Union socialist web page.

Let's look at IG Metall's views in practice....

As for the trade unions and works council, which claim to “represent” VW workers, they have functioned as co-conspirators in this looting operation. At the same time, the organisations have signalled their support for the elimination of more than 10,000 jobs.
In early March, Wolfgang Porsche whose family owns a majority of Volkswagen shares, said that the company would carry out job cuts “if it was determined that we have an excess of personnel in individual areas.” According to Deutsche Welle, “Porsche’s words were welcomed by the head of the company’s works council, Bernd Osterloh, who saw them as a departure from the board’s earlier ‘policy of speechlessness’ over its decision to cut VW’s overhead costs by 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) a year in the wake of its emissions scandal.”
Defying the angry protests of workers and media criticism, the supervisory board decided at its April 23 meeting to make no changes in the bonus system. Although the company has suffered billions in losses from the scandal, the committee announced that the paying of bonuses would be delayed, but not cut, and certainly not eliminated.​
See the difference?   Even the "workers councils" are pro-corporation.  They support the elimination of 10,000 jobs, if that's what it takes for the company to grow and survive.    They support bonuses for executives if they guide the company through a rocky time.

The article goes on to say that VW's CEO earned over $20 Million, which is larger than that of the current Walmart CEO. 

*Now, do German auto workers make more than US workers?   Sort of.....*

First off, I want to make a point here about protectionism.   German auto workers do in fact earn more than US auto workers.   Now the claim we here from the left, and pro-protectionist people, is that the US can't compete with low wage countries like China.    Well.... to Germany, WE are the low wage country, and they still seem to be able to compete.
*
But even so, there are a few things to consider.*

*First*, you people fail to grasp that workers are paid from the value of the labor they produce.   Period.   The company has no control over how much your labor is worth.  The customer does.  If the customer isn't willing to pay $50,000 for Chevy Metro, then it isn't worth a million dollars.

Cars in Germany are super expensive, even at the base level.   A basic VW Jetta in the US, costs about $17,600.   The exact same car in Germany, base level VW Jetta, is $26,000.   Now can you figure this out lefty?   Higher price means you can pay workers more money?  Right?

Of course because cars are so expensive in German, 30% fewer people own them.  By the way, if you do some research (as I have), you'll find that workers at auto plants that make more expensive vehicles, are unsurprisingly earning more money.   Take Ford's Louisville, Ky plant, where they make the Lincoln Navigator.   Isn't very shocking to find the far more expensive car, has employees that are paid far more to build them.

*Second*, you people also ignore that the higher wages are not kept by the workers.  Yeah, they are paid more, but they keep less of what they make.

For example, your Social Security is 10% of your wage.  Plus, 1.5% goes to unemployment compensation.   Plus, 1.5% nursing tax.   Plus, 7.3% health care tax.   And lastly, you might have to pay an additional 1% tax depending on what type of private health insurance you get.    So you are going to lose 20% of your wage..... and that's BEFORE income tax.

Income tax is a minimum 14% of your income, and it scales up 42% if you go over the 52K Euros ($58K) per year.   Oh, and by the way, they also have a nifty 5.5% surcharge.   The surcharge is on how much you pay in tax.  So if you have to pay 1,000 Euros in tax, you magically get to pay an extra 55 Euros on top.

So the bottom line is, yes German auto workers are paid more money... that's true.  But they lose 1/5th of their check, plus income tax. 

*Lastly, they flat out work more.*   There are dozens of stories about how in Germany, when you are work....  you work.   I don't know how else to explain this, because everyone seems to think they work hard, when they are not working.  I don't know if this applies directly to you Joe Blow... but I've seen this personally.

I was working at a company, and this guy walked in, sat down on a chair, put his feet up on the desk, and proceeded to tell everyone what a hard worker he was, and how he couldn't ever imagine getting a second job, when he just worked so dang hard.... (this actually happened).

I was actually waiting for a punch line.  I just assumed he was getting ready to tell us a joke.  But he was serious.  He worked reeeeeallly hard with his feet up on that desk, butt in a chair.   Telling us how hard he worked, is proof enough of how hard he worked.  In fact just telling us this, was hard work.   And this guy complained non-stop about how little he was paid.  The irony apparently lost.

But like I said before, you pay employees out of the value of their labor.  When you produce more, you earn more, and the fact is they produce more in Germany, than American workers do, and thus are paid more.

*Now as a side note*, German Union participation has fallen dramatically, and wages have also fallen dramatically.    Fewer and fewer workers at German auto plants, are Unionized, and fewer of them are paid Union wages.    When the Trade Unions publish all their data on auto wages in Germany, they avoid collecting non-Union non-full-time wage data.  Thus it looks like German Auto workers are earning a ton more than US workers, when the fact is, they are not.   Last data I looked at, showed an average wage of $25 compared to US $23 dollars.

And by the way, this too is also supported by the German unions.   Remember, German unions are pro-corporation.  They actually think the companies that provide them jobs, and wages, and products and wealth.... are good.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Let this be a lesson to every single one of you, about what the left-wing is really about. They talk about being equal, and standing for the poor, and not being discriminatory... but this right here, is the how they really think. They consider everyone else "backward ass" and "white trust" and "third world red states" and "JesusLand". That how the left really looks at people who are poorer, or less educated, or not as "enlightened" as they are.



yes, when you are ignorant, racist, and full of backward ass superstitions to the point where you vote against your own (and my) economic interests, I will tend to look down on you. 

The South has ALWAYS been a third world country. Our biggest mistake was letting them continue to stand tall after the Civil War, when we should have shamed them the way we did Germany and Japan. 



Andylusion said:


> German Unions don't really have a say in who is CEO.



Uh, yeah, they do. BY LAW

Mitbestimmungsgesetz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It applies to all German capital companies, including public companies (_Aktiengesellschaft_), cooperatives (_eingetragene Genossenschaft_), private limited companies (_Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung_) and partnerships (_Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien_) if they have over 2000 employees. Employees and national unions have equal representation on the supervisory board with the stockholders, but the board’s chairman must be a stockholder who has a tie-breaking vote.[3]

The principle is to have almost equal representation between employee representatives and shareholder representatives on the supervisory board (_Aufsichtsrat_). Germany company law has two levels of boards of directors. The supervisory board then elects a management board which leads the company. The head of the supervisory board is always a shareholder representative who has two votes in case of a deadlock.

Under the Codetermination Act, the supervisory board must have 12, 16 or 20 members depending on the company's size. Two or three seats will usually be reserved for union representatives. the other seats will be workers, officials and appointees of other interest groups.

Companies with equal representation on their boards must have a dedicated management board position for labor affairs.[4]Codetermination allows employees and not only unions to influence the operations of firms and their surplus.[4]

Correcting your ignorance could be a full time job.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let this be a lesson to every single one of you, about what the left-wing is really about. They talk about being equal, and standing for the poor, and not being discriminatory... but this right here, is the how they really think. They consider everyone else "backward ass" and "white trust" and "third world red states" and "JesusLand". That how the left really looks at people who are poorer, or less educated, or not as "enlightened" as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, when you are ignorant, racist, and full of backward ass superstitions to the point where you vote against your own (and my) economic interests, I will tend to look down on you.
> 
> The South has ALWAYS been a third world country. Our biggest mistake was letting them continue to stand tall after the Civil War, when we should have shamed them the way we did Germany and Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> German Unions don't really have a say in who is CEO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, they do. BY LAW
> 
> Mitbestimmungsgesetz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It applies to all German capital companies, including public companies (_Aktiengesellschaft_), cooperatives (_eingetragene Genossenschaft_), private limited companies (_Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung_) and partnerships (_Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien_) if they have over 2000 employees. Employees and national unions have equal representation on the supervisory board with the stockholders, but the board’s chairman must be a stockholder who has a tie-breaking vote.[3]
> 
> The principle is to have almost equal representation between employee representatives and shareholder representatives on the supervisory board (_Aufsichtsrat_). Germany company law has two levels of boards of directors. The supervisory board then elects a management board which leads the company. The head of the supervisory board is always a shareholder representative who has two votes in case of a deadlock.
> 
> Under the Codetermination Act, the supervisory board must have 12, 16 or 20 members depending on the company's size. Two or three seats will usually be reserved for union representatives. the other seats will be workers, officials and appointees of other interest groups.
> 
> Companies with equal representation on their boards must have a dedicated management board position for labor affairs.[4]Codetermination allows employees and not only unions to influence the operations of firms and their surplus.[4]
> 
> Correcting your ignorance could be a full time job.
Click to expand...


Yeah blaw blaw blaw blaw... I don't really need your reasons and rationalizations for being a judgemental, arrogant, stuck up, hate filled, bit of condemning left-wing trash.   Thanks but I don't care.   You being a jerk, for any reason, is still just a stuck up self-centered arrogant trash pile.... being a jerk.   So thanks for your little FYI about how "_right you are_" in being a left-wing trash spewing jerk... but I don't need it.  No one else does either.  Keep your holier-than-thou crap to yourself, and other scummy trash like you.   Ok?  Just keep your smelly disgusting rationalization crap away from the rest of us.  None of us care about the reasons for your blithering idiocy.

Yes, by law no one is supposed to have cocaine and meth in the US.    By law, really doesn't matter much does it?

Yes, in theory the German Unions could according to the law, control who is CEO.    I have yet to see an example where that has actually happened.

Matthias Müller was CEO of Porsche in 2010.  He had a number of jobs within Porsche prior to.  Porsche owns 51% stake in Volkswagen, and when the CEO of VW stepped down after the emissions scandal, Muller was appointed CEO, which is what Porsche wanted.

Sounds pretty much exactly the same as how things like that would go here.

So all that BS about how the Unions determine who the CEO is in Germany.... yeah... ok nice law.... just like meth is illegal here, it doesn't conform to reality.  Pretty much the executives appoint the CEO just like in any other major corporation.

Same with Rupert Stadler of Audi.  He was CFO before that, and served on the board of directors since 1997, and served in management before that.

He was appointed by the executive directors to be CEO.  Again... just like any other company in any other country.    Yes yes blaw blaw blaw, the law says..... but in practice.... it's exactly the same as anywhere else.

I'm more than open to hear a counter example.  Which CEO of a German corporation was removed by the Unions or Worker Councils (which are not the same as Unions anyway)?  What example would you point to.  I'll look it up.  I'm open to new information.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Yeah blaw blaw blaw blaw... I don't really need your reasons and rationalizations for being a judgemental, arrogant, stuck up, hate filled, bit of condemning left-wing trash. Thanks but I don't care. You being a jerk, for any reason, is still just a stuck up self-centered arrogant trash pile.... being a jerk. So thanks for your little FYI about how "_right you are_" in being a left-wing trash spewing jerk... but I don't need it. No one else does either. Keep your holier-than-thou crap to yourself, and other scummy trash like you. Ok? Just keep your smelly disgusting rationalization crap away from the rest of us. None of us care about the reasons for your blithering idiocy.



duly noted that you've been smoked on the issue.

The problem with you redneck bible thumpers is most of you have no idea how stupid you are. You cling to your guns and your bibles and watch the big corporations continue to take away everything your grandparents fought for when they marched on picket lines against the greed of big corporations. 

I mean, I could go on about how truly ABSURD Christianity is.  I never get tired of mocking the idea of eating an imaginary God-Man because of a talking snake. But unfortunately, you guys being a malleable as you are has an effect, and your bad decisions have consequences for the rest of us.

I could mock how you dumb-ass rednecks look back at the confederacy like it was a good thing. "Yup, my Great-Grandpappy/Uncle done fought so that a few rich people could keep owning other people! Dixie forever".  You see, Germans look back at WWII with a profound sense of shame.  Japanese like to avoid talking about WWII.  But not you inbreds.  YOu all talk about that like it was something to be proud of instead of a profoundly stupid thing to do. 



Andylusion said:


> I'm more than open to hear a counter example. Which CEO of a German corporation was removed by the Unions or Worker Councils (which are not the same as Unions anyway)? What example would you point to. I'll look it up. I'm open to new information.



No, you aren't.  The example you cited was one where the union and the management agreed that VW had an image problem that needed to be fixed due to a bad decision made by management. 

Frankly, what Germany has could be the future for this country- Employee ownership and employee management. 

Why does this concept terrify you?


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more than open to hear a counter example. Which CEO of a German corporation was removed by the Unions or Worker Councils (which are not the same as Unions anyway)? What example would you point to. I'll look it up. I'm open to new information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you aren't.  The example you cited was one where the union and the management agreed that VW had an image problem that needed to be fixed due to a bad decision made by management.
> 
> Frankly, what Germany has could be the future for this country- Employee ownership and employee management.
> 
> Why does this concept terrify you?
Click to expand...


Apparently you missed where I really don't care about your rationalizations for being a stuck up, arrogant, self-centered, narcissistic creep.   I really don't care, and I'm going to delete the sections that I don't care about from now on.  Keep your rationalizations for being a jerk to yourself.  All decent people, don't buy your excuses, and thus we don't need to hear them.

So that's your only example?   The former CEO of VW resigned.  There is no evidence that he was given an ultimatum.  There is no evidence that he was asked to step down.   At least none that I have seen.

Now I realize that you simply fit the facts to your claims.... but I look at the facts, and determine my claims.

If you want to convince me that the Unions had anything to do with it... here is the evidence I need.

Show me where a Union had a CEO removed that the executive team was in favor of?
Show me where a Union nominated their own CEO, over the heads of the executives?
Show me where a Union absolutely refused a CEO the executive team nominated?

All you pointed out, was that the Unions agreed with the executive team on who replaced a CEO that on his own, resigned.   "we agree!" isn't an example of showing you have any power in the situation.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> I really don't care, and I'm going to delete the sections that I don't care about from now on.



great. I will do the same.

Oh, wait. that would be everything you say. 

I guess we are done here.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> So that's your only example? The former CEO of VW resigned. There is no evidence that he was given an ultimatum. There is no evidence that he was asked to step down. At least none that I have seen.



Okay, i fibbed.  You were the one who brought up VW's CEO stepping down, but that was a forgone conclusion. No way that guy stayed after what he pulled. 

Point was, German unions have a say in how their companies are run by German law. I know this horrifies you, being from JesusLand were you are all used to be told what to do by your betters.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care, and I'm going to delete the sections that I don't care about from now on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> great. I will do the same.
> 
> Oh, wait. that would be everything you say.
> 
> I guess we are done here.
Click to expand...


Fantastic.   It doesn't bother me one bit when a moron removes himself from the discussion.  By all means remove everything I say, and leave.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Fantastic. It doesn't bother me one bit when a moron removes himself from the discussion. By all means remove everything I say, and leave.



well, since i already mopped the floor with you, there's not much else to day, is there?


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's your only example? The former CEO of VW resigned. There is no evidence that he was given an ultimatum. There is no evidence that he was asked to step down. At least none that I have seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, i fibbed.  You were the one who brought up VW's CEO stepping down, but that was a forgone conclusion. No way that guy stayed after what he pulled.
> 
> Point was, German unions have a say in how their companies are run by German law. I know this horrifies you....
Click to expand...


Of course you fibbed, mr blaw blaw blaw.   Left-wingers are habitual liars, and you are no exception.

Yes, I am the one who brought it up to point out that the Unions had nothing to do with it, and neither this post, nor the prior contradicts.

Again, you failed to provide an example of your claim.  Thus once again, I claim you are full of it.

You said they determine who is CEO of their company.  I posted counter examples, and demanded you provide actual proof that Unions control who is CEO.

You have provided no such example, and thus once again are proven false.

By the way, Union membership in Germany has consistently fallen year over year.  Barely 17% of jobs are Union now.    So even your "by the law" crap doesn't apply to the vast majority of all companies operating in Germany.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fantastic. It doesn't bother me one bit when a moron removes himself from the discussion. By all means remove everything I say, and leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, since i already mopped the floor with you, there's not much else to day, is there?
Click to expand...


And yet you keep talking...  indicating you have not mopped the floor with anyone.

You remind me of the Chevy Metro, with "sport" written on the side.   Hint: If you have to write "sport" on the side of the car to let everyone know it's sporty.... then it isn't.

Hint: If you have to tell everyone that you mopped the floor with someone.... then you didn't.






If it makes you feel better, I'll pretend that you won the argument:  "You win Pigeon".  Hope that helps you feel better about yourself.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Of course you fibbed, mr blaw blaw blaw. Left-wingers are habitual liars, and you are no exception.
> 
> Yes, I am the one who brought it up to point out that the Unions had nothing to do with it, and neither this post, nor the prior contradicts.
> 
> Again, you failed to provide an example of your claim. Thus once again, I claim you are full of it.



Guy, the German law is the German Law.  Period.


----------



## Andylusion

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you fibbed, mr blaw blaw blaw. Left-wingers are habitual liars, and you are no exception.
> 
> Yes, I am the one who brought it up to point out that the Unions had nothing to do with it, and neither this post, nor the prior contradicts.
> 
> Again, you failed to provide an example of your claim. Thus once again, I claim you are full of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, the German law is the German Law.  Period.
Click to expand...


Yes yes pigeon.   You win again.


----------



## JoeB131

Andylusion said:


> Yes yes pigeon. You win again.



well, it's pretty easy when dealing with stupid people. conservatism is like battered wife syndrome. No matter how often the One Percent beats you, you'll keep making excuses for them.


----------



## there4eyeM

When speaking about 'affordable energy', what is really mystifying is that solar is so often referred to as expensive. Solar is not an expenditure, it is an investment.


----------



## Old Rocks

Solar is rapidly decreasing in cost. Both at utility scale, and at the home cost. As the materials science continues to mature, solar will eventually become the cheapest power available, and any company with a large roof area will supplement their profits with power generated from their roofs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Silhouette said:


> You talking about solar photovoltaic?  or the new type of linear solar thermal steam generators they're already using to get FREE energy in the form of the typical coal-fired steam turbine?
> 
> The BigOil and BigCoal advocates always forget to make the distinction what type of solar power they're talking about.  No, I take that back, they always name the most inefficient and most expensive or failed type of solar applications as "the cutting edge in solar".
> 
> Have a look at the real cutting edge of solar.  Every day of sunshine is a day the power company doesn't have to burn coal or oil to power the towns nearby.  In heavily populated sunshine rich areas of the South and Southwest, the company can not be burning coal or oil during peak use times (day) for up to 300 days per year.  Talk about improving your electric company's profit margin!
> 
> Just mirrors set up in a line, close to the oil tube they're heating to 300 degrees celsius..that's right...celsius..a couple of heat exchangers, some water and a turbine just like the ones in nuclear, coal and oil power plants.



*Have a look at the real cutting edge of solar. Every day of sunshine is a day the power company doesn't have to burn coal or oil to power the towns nearby.
*
That's awesome! What do they do at night or on cloudy days?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

there4eyeM said:


> When speaking about 'affordable energy', what is really mystifying is that solar is so often referred to as expensive. Solar is not an expenditure, it is an investment.



*When speaking about 'affordable energy', what is really mystifying is that solar is so often referred to as expensive. Solar is not an expenditure, it is an investment.*

How long does it take to earn the investment back?


----------



## Old Rocks

Less time than a coal fired plant, or even natural gas. You see, once in, the energy is pretty much free. No pipelines or rail heads needed. No needed to figure out how to store toxic fly ash. And no external costs that the people living in the area have to bear, like childhood asthma. And the initial costs continue to come down.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Less time than a coal fired plant, or even natural gas. You see, once in, the energy is pretty much free. No pipelines or rail heads needed. No needed to figure ouWhat do they do at night or on cloudy days?t how to store toxic fly ash. And no external costs that the people living in the area have to bear, like childhood asthma. And the initial costs continue to come down.



*Less time than a coal fired plant, or even natural gas.*

Great news. Profitable energy doesn't need a subsidy.
Not that I don't trust you, but do you have any links that back up this claim?
*
You see, once in, the energy is pretty much free. No pipelines or rail heads needed.*

What do they do at night or on cloudy days?


----------



## Andylusion

there4eyeM said:


> When speaking about 'affordable energy', what is really mystifying is that solar is so often referred to as expensive. Solar is not an expenditure, it is an investment.



I have yet to hear from anyone, anywhere, that shows solar panels are a wise investment.   I have had numerous examples to the contrary.

Now it might be an investment to an individual, but it's an expense to everyone else.

For example... if I fund the purchase of YOUR solar panel, then to you it's an investment, because you paid little, and get a return.

But to me, it's an expense.

Similarly, the only way a solar panel EVER breaks even, is if government funds it.   Yeah, if you get the poor tax payers of this country, to buy your solar panel, that's a great investment for you.

But to everyone else, and the nation as a whole, it's an expense.  We all lose, so you can win.

If you removes all subsidies from solar panels, so that you are not screwing all of us, for your benefit, then solar panels no longer are an investment.

The average solar panel will never produce as much power in it's usable life time, as it costs to purchase.

That's exactly why, when the UK government cut subsidies for solar panels, the market crashed.    Sales dropped to about 10% of previous sales.    Massive crash in the market, when people had to actually pay the real price solar panels.

They are not an investment, unless someone else is paying the bill.


----------



## Andylusion

Old Rocks said:


> Solar is rapidly decreasing in cost. Both at utility scale, and at the home cost. As the materials science continues to mature, solar will eventually become the cheapest power available, and any company with a large roof area will supplement their profits with power generated from their roofs.



I doubt it.   They will continue to do so, as long as your are stupid enough to pay companies with your taxes, to subsidize those solar panels.

The moment subsidies are ended, I wager the market will end too.   And your solar dreams will disappear like fog vapor in the sun.


----------



## Andylusion

Old Rocks said:


> Less time than a coal fired plant, or even natural gas. You see, once in, the energy is pretty much free. No pipelines or rail heads needed. No needed to figure out how to store toxic fly ash. And no external costs that the people living in the area have to bear, like childhood asthma. And the initial costs continue to come down.



Not even close to true.   A coal power plant can last 100 years.  Here in Ohio, we have a coal power plant that has been in operation since 1940.

A solar panel has an average lifespan at best, 20 years.   And even then, power output falls consistently.   The actual functional use of the solar panel destroys it.

Depending on the quality of the panel, verses how hot, or cold, or how much the panel is used, will affect how much degradation happens.  In other words, if you have the panel out someplace with less sunlight, then it will last longer... which is great except it is also not producing much power.

Regardless, every single year, the amount of power produced by your solar panels will drop between 0.5% and 1% a year.

By the time a solar panel reaches 80% of it's electrical production, you will need to have them replaced, or risk damaging the electronic control systems.

Typically that's 15 to 20 years at best.     It's not free. And it doesn't last forever.   It's like all those Prius owners who thought they could avoid all those gas prices for free, only to have the battery die, and spend $15,000 on a new battery pack.  Left-wing is constantly proposing myths.

By the way, that's all assuming nothing else happens.   Rodent bites a panel, and the panel is shorted and dead.   Your manufacturer warranty doesn't cover that.    Hail, and storm damage is also not covered.  You the owner are expected to out-door proof the panels.

That includes the wiring and the control systems.  One muchy from a chipmunk, and your system is done until you pay for a replacement.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Andy, do they pay you to lie?

The Real Lifespan of Solar Panels - Energy Informative

What will happen to my solar panels after 25 years?
The truth is we don`t really know – there`s not really a lot of data to look at since photovoltaics is a relatively new technology (the vast majority of all solar panels are less than 10 years old).
However, from what we are seeing so far, we have reason to be excited. Here are a couple of interesting reports:


A 33W solar panel (Arco Solar 16-2000) actually outperformed it’s original factory specifications 30 years after it was manufactured.[2]
World`s first modern solar panel still works after 60 years.[3]
Kyocera has reported several solar power installations that continue to operate reliably and generate electricity even though they are nearly 30 years old.[4]


The technology has improved, the solar panels on today`s market are more robust and durable.

This is where it gets really interesting. What does all of this actually mean? The lifespan of a modern solar panel is far longer than the 20 years that we use to calculate costs and earnings. This basically translates into more money in your pocket.

I would bet that a solar panel installed today would be up and running (and still generating a good amount of electricity) 30 – 40 years down the line.
*


----------



## Old Rocks

*Ripe-for-retirement capacity varies by region and scenario*

The relative economic competitiveness of coal-fired generators was determined by comparing them to an average existing and new natural gas plant, with and without a carbon price of $20 per ton of CO2; and to new wind facilities with and without the federal production tax credit (PTC).



CHART: Results of Ripe for Retirement Scenarios


Most ripe-for-retirement capacity is concentrated in the Southeast and Midwest when compared with existing natural gas plants without a carbon price.
In this natural gas scenario, Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Indiana top the list with the most ripe-for-retirement capacity, and 44 percent of the total is owned and operated by just five power companies, including Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Duke Energy, DTE Energy, and CMS Energy.
Comparing coal generators to new wind facilities with tax credits in place moved several states with strong wind energy resources higher up in the rankings. In this scenario, Texas, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma top the list.
For detailed information about each scenario, please see the tables below.
Ripe for Retirement: An Economic Analysis of the U.S. Coal Fleet — 2013 Update

*Time to close them down and move on to more efficient and clean generation.*


----------



## Andylusion

Old Rocks said:


> *Ripe-for-retirement capacity varies by region and scenario*
> 
> The relative economic competitiveness of coal-fired generators was determined by comparing them to an average existing and new natural gas plant, with and without a carbon price of $20 per ton of CO2; and to new wind facilities with and without the federal production tax credit (PTC).
> 
> 
> 
> CHART: Results of Ripe for Retirement Scenarios
> 
> 
> Most ripe-for-retirement capacity is concentrated in the Southeast and Midwest when compared with existing natural gas plants without a carbon price.
> In this natural gas scenario, Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Indiana top the list with the most ripe-for-retirement capacity, and 44 percent of the total is owned and operated by just five power companies, including Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Duke Energy, DTE Energy, and CMS Energy.
> Comparing coal generators to new wind facilities with tax credits in place moved several states with strong wind energy resources higher up in the rankings. In this scenario, Texas, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma top the list.
> For detailed information about each scenario, please see the tables below.
> Ripe for Retirement: An Economic Analysis of the U.S. Coal Fleet — 2013 Update
> 
> *Time to close them down and move on to more efficient and clean generation.*



The chart is hilarious.   It makes my point perfectly.

It says very clearly at the bottom of the chart, that the amount of "ripe-for-retirement" depends on the existence or absence of carbon prices, and tax-credits for wind power.

Well gee there's a shock.    So a coal plant is more ready to retire IF the government jacks up costs on coal with carbon prices, and gives tax credits for wind power.

Well crap.  That's just brilliant.  Give that man a diploma.    If you punish one source of power, and reward another, the chances of the first being closed is higher.   No freakin duh.

If we place a $10 sur-tax on milk, and subsidize orange juice by 50%.... more dairy farms will be "ripe for retirement" too.    Brilliant. 

The reason coal is ripe for retirement, has absolutely nothing to do with market forces, or science.  It has nothing to do with somehow solar panels being a more 'efficient' means of power production.  Not by a long shot.

The only reason, is because government is actively trying to punish coal, and reward solar.   If those influences were removed, no such "ripe-for-retirement" would be taking place.


----------



## Old Rocks

No, government is not 'punishing' coal. They are responding to a very real situation in which burning fossil fuel is creating an uncertain future for all of us. Just the rise in sea level in this century is going to cost the world trillions of dollars in infrastructure. And the price of wind and solar continues to decline, while that of coal continues to increase.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> No, government is not 'punishing' coal. They are responding to a very real situation in which burning fossil fuel is creating an uncertain future for all of us. Just the rise in sea level in this century is going to cost the world trillions of dollars in infrastructure. And the price of wind and solar continues to decline, while that of coal continues to increase.



*And the price of wind and solar continues to decline*

Why are German electricity prices rising?
They're building so much wind and solar, their prices should be plummeting.


----------



## Andylusion

Old Rocks said:


> No, government is not 'punishing' coal. They are responding to a very real situation in which burning fossil fuel is creating an uncertain future for all of us. Just the rise in sea level in this century is going to cost the world trillions of dollars in infrastructure. And the price of wind and solar continues to decline, while that of coal continues to increase.



When you place a cost on a specific marketable product, you are punishing that product.  It does not matter that you have a bunch of rationalizations, the fact is the only reason wind power has a any market, is because you are punishing coal, while rewarding wind.  You eliminate the punishment and the reward, and wind is nothing.

See in the real world, if you produce something that has value, you don't need to harm the other options to make your option profitable.  Nor do you need someone to subsidize your product to make it competitive.

Now I get it, you believe there is some CO2 boogeyman that is going to wipe out the planet.  It's a valid opinion, one I don't believe are supported by any facts.  

However, that doesn't change the fact that solar power doesn't replace conventional power.  It never has, and won't any time in the foreseeable future.

Why Germany’s nuclear phaseout is leading to more coal burning

When Germany started shutting down their nuclear plants, they didn't replace that power generation with any renewable of any kind.  Contrary to popular belief, Germany replaced it's lost nuclear power with.... foriegn nuclear power.  Germany went from being a convention power generating exporter, to a "green-energy" importer.... and is importing power from nuclear power plants.

And the gap is made up by increasing use of coal.   So much for the green-energy Utopia.


----------



## hauke

your "affordable Energy " isn t affordable.

it destroys the Planetary ecosystem. it destroys the very thing you need to live.

obviouesly you do not understand that.

its "affordable" because your not paying the price it costs.


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> your "affordable Energy " isn t affordable.
> 
> it destroys the Planetary ecosystem. it destroys the very thing you need to live.
> 
> obviouesly you do not understand that.
> 
> its "affordable" because your not paying the price it costs.








The problem with this statement is that you can't show the slightest bit of evidence to support it.  Here's the deal, computer models ARE NOT SCIENCE!  They are science fiction.  YOU need to learn the difference.


----------



## hauke

the evidence you demand is the destruction of the planetary ecosystem.
by the time the evidence is good enough for you, its too late, your dead im dead and everyone else is dead.

 im fine with less evidence.


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> the evidence you demand is the destruction of the planetary ecosystem.
> by the time the evidence is good enough for you, its too late, your dead im dead and everyone else is dead.
> 
> im fine with less evidence.







No, you're fine with NO evidence.  There's a difference.  I, on the other hand, can look back at the paleo climatological record and see, quite plainly, that when the planet has been warmer, it has been better for all life.  The ONLY people who think otherwise are climatologists pushing a political agenda.  The science, and actual historical fact support me.  Not you.


----------



## hauke

Thanks you just admited that theres Human caused global warming.

now discussing the consequences becomes practical.

Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.

Man is the cause of higher CO2 levels : burning of fossile fuels + deforestation. measured co2 levels have been rising , measured scince about 1900.

Consequences : not possible to predict accurately as CO2 levels rise beyond anything in fossile records. possibility that earth turns into a Venus style greenhouse planet ? unknown. not possible to calculate.

hey lets just wait and see if the earth turns in another Venus killing everything on earth ! thats a great idea.

should it acctually happen you will concede i was right !.

uh your not you will be dead.

and if not who cares we all just move to the canadian rockys as the midwest turns into a shallow inland sea and the canadian tundra into a shallow sea. and that bangladesh and New York and all those other costal plaines sink underwater .. who cares.

the point is that if theres a risk of this kind, you should be able to prove it cannot happen, not that i have to prove it will happen.

can you prove that there is no climate catastrophe ?
can you prove what its limits will be ?

prove that theres no risk no danger to your behavior or stop it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> Thanks you just admited that theres Human caused global warming.
> 
> now discussing the consequences becomes practical.
> 
> Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.
> 
> Man is the cause of higher CO2 levels : burning of fossile fuels + deforestation. measured co2 levels have been rising , measured scince about 1900.
> 
> Consequences : not possible to predict accurately as CO2 levels rise beyond anything in fossile records. possibility that earth turns into a Venus style greenhouse planet ? unknown. not possible to calculate.
> 
> hey lets just wait and see if the earth turns in another Venus killing everything on earth ! thats a great idea.
> 
> should it acctually happen you will concede i was right !.
> 
> uh your not you will be dead.
> 
> and if not who cares we all just move to the canadian rockys as the midwest turns into a shallow inland sea and the canadian tundra into a shallow sea. and that bangladesh and New York and all those other costal plaines sink underwater .. who cares.
> 
> the point is that if theres a risk of this kind, you should be able to prove it cannot happen, not that i have to prove it will happen.
> 
> can you prove that there is no climate catastrophe ?
> can you prove what its limits will be ?
> 
> prove that theres no risk no danger to your behavior or stop it.



We should immediately start building 100 new nuke plants in the US.

Right?


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> Thanks you just admited that theres Human caused global warming.
> 
> now discussing the consequences becomes practical.
> 
> Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.
> 
> Man is the cause of higher CO2 levels : burning of fossile fuels + deforestation. measured co2 levels have been rising , measured scince about 1900.
> 
> Consequences : not possible to predict accurately as CO2 levels rise beyond anything in fossile records. possibility that earth turns into a Venus style greenhouse planet ? unknown. not possible to calculate.
> 
> hey lets just wait and see if the earth turns in another Venus killing everything on earth ! thats a great idea.
> 
> should it acctually happen you will concede i was right !.
> 
> uh your not you will be dead.
> 
> and if not who cares we all just move to the canadian rockys as the midwest turns into a shallow inland sea and the canadian tundra into a shallow sea. and that bangladesh and New York and all those other costal plaines sink underwater .. who cares.
> 
> the point is that if theres a risk of this kind, you should be able to prove it cannot happen, not that i have to prove it will happen.
> 
> can you prove that there is no climate catastrophe ?
> can you prove what its limits will be ?
> 
> prove that theres no risk no danger to your behavior or stop it.



*Consequences : not possible to predict accurately as CO2 levels rise beyond anything in fossile records. possibility that earth turns into a Venus style greenhouse planet ? unknown. not possible to calculate*.

Lmao where were you when they were talking about the dinosaurs?

The earth had 5 times as much C02 in the atmosphere then today and only a few degrees warmer.


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> Thanks you just admited that theres Human caused global warming.
> 
> now discussing the consequences becomes practical.
> 
> Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.
> 
> Man is the cause of higher CO2 levels : burning of fossile fuels + deforestation. measured co2 levels have been rising , measured scince about 1900.
> 
> Consequences : not possible to predict accurately as CO2 levels rise beyond anything in fossile records. possibility that earth turns into a Venus style greenhouse planet ? unknown. not possible to calculate.
> 
> hey lets just wait and see if the earth turns in another Venus killing everything on earth ! thats a great idea.
> 
> should it acctually happen you will concede i was right !.
> 
> uh your not you will be dead.
> 
> and if not who cares we all just move to the canadian rockys as the midwest turns into a shallow inland sea and the canadian tundra into a shallow sea. and that bangladesh and New York and all those other costal plaines sink underwater .. who cares.
> 
> the point is that if theres a risk of this kind, you should be able to prove it cannot happen, not that i have to prove it will happen.
> 
> can you prove that there is no climate catastrophe ?
> can you prove what its limits will be ?
> 
> prove that theres no risk no danger to your behavior or stop it.




*Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.*

Can You read a thermometer to a degree and be accurate 1 out of 50 Times? What about the next person will he read it the same way as you?

What about the record keeping say in Alaska it didn't start till the 1950s, 

In Africa around the 1970s...most all those early records came from the northern hemisphere , today we have computer digital readings world wide


----------



## hauke

We should immediately start building 100 new nuke plants in the US.

Right?[/QUOTE]

if you have a place to put the ensuring nuclear waste away safely for the next 10 million years, and if those nuclear plants are 200% safe, so nothing like tchernobyl or fukushima can happen :

YES YES YES

otherwise :

NO NO NO


----------



## hauke

i got the perfect place for nuclear powerplants of fission design.

you put them in a subduction zone, 6km under the ocean surface you dig 2km into the ocean bottom.

there you build the nuclear powerplant, you don t need to move the radioactive waste, it will get subducted into the mantel, and it takes 10 million years before it surfaces in a vulcano, massivly diluted + after 10 million years the real dangerouse radioactive isotopes are all gone

thats a safe fission powerplant

it would allso cost so much per KW/h that its not cost efficent.

any nuclear fission powerplant is not cost efficent even in relation to people on bycicles


----------



## hauke

for the money that it takes to build 100 Fission nuclear powerplants you could cover every house int he USA with enough solarcells to produce all the power neccesary + have batterys in every house for 1 week of electricity + build offshore wind farms for another complete energy supply

so fission power is just useless

considering the last 10 nuclear fission powerplants build and their price, 100 nuclear powerplants of 1000 Megawatt capacity would cost about 1500 billion dollars, just to build, not to fuel, the fuel in a lifetime would cost another 1 trillion dollars, the removal another 2 trillion dollars ... and then you have to find a place to put the radioactive waste for the next 1 million years.

sollar and wind is just so much cheaper

and thats not even considering the risk that some crazy muslims fly a plane into a nuclear reactor


----------



## hauke

*Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.*

Can You read a thermometer to a degree and be accurate 1 out of 50 Times? What about the next person will he read it the same way as you?

What about the record keeping say in Alaska it didn't start till the 1950s,

In Africa around the 1970s...most all those early records came from the northern hemisphere , today we have computer digital readings world wide[/QUOTE]
you can t read a thermometer ??????????????

i can, most people can, its not difficult

if your such a moron you can t read a thermometer... don t talk about science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> We should immediately start building 100 new nuke plants in the US.
> 
> Right?



if you have a place to put the ensuring nuclear waste away safely for the next 10 million years, and if those nuclear plants are 200% safe, so nothing like tchernobyl or fukushima can happen :



> YES YES YES
> 
> otherwise :
> 
> NO NO NO


*
if you have a place to put the ensuring nuclear waste away safely for the next 10 million years
*
The really radioactive stuff goes away in a couple of hundred years.
*
and if those nuclear plants are 200% safe
*
We need to save the planet from evil CO2.
We need nukes.
*
so nothing like tchernobyl or fukushima can happen*

I agree, let's not use a really crappy Soviet design and lets avoid tidal waves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> for the money that it takes to build 100 Fission nuclear powerplants you could cover every house int he USA with enough solarcells to produce all the power neccesary + have batterys in every house for 1 week of electricity + build offshore wind farms for another complete energy supply
> 
> so fission power is just useless
> 
> considering the last 10 nuclear fission powerplants build and their price, 100 nuclear powerplants of 1000 Megawatt capacity would cost about 1500 billion dollars, just to build, not to fuel, the fuel in a lifetime would cost another 1 trillion dollars, the removal another 2 trillion dollars ... and then you have to find a place to put the radioactive waste for the next 1 million years.
> 
> sollar and wind is just so much cheaper
> 
> and thats not even considering the risk that some crazy muslims fly a plane into a nuclear reactor



* for the money that it takes to build 100 Fission nuclear powerplants you could cover every house int he USA with enough solarcells to produce all the power necessary*

That'd be awesome! And imagine the savings when people in Chicago (and colder regions) freeze to death during winter due to lack of USEFUL energy.

*so fission power is just useless*

If that's the case, solar and wind should be flushed as well.


----------



## hauke

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should immediately start building 100 new nuke plants in the US.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you have a place to put the ensuring nuclear waste away safely for the next 10 million years, and if those nuclear plants are 200% safe, so nothing like tchernobyl or fukushima can happen :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES YES YES
> 
> otherwise :
> 
> NO NO NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> if you have a place to put the ensuring nuclear waste away safely for the next 10 million years
> *
> The really radioactive stuff goes away in a couple of hundred years.
> *
> and if those nuclear plants are 200% safe
> *
> We need to save the planet from evil CO2.
> We need nukes.
> *
> so nothing like tchernobyl or fukushima can happen*
> 
> I agree, let's not use a really crappy Soviet design and lets avoid tidal waves.
Click to expand...

fukushia was a USA nuclear reactor design... maybe do a little research before answering


----------



## hauke

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> for the money that it takes to build 100 Fission nuclear powerplants you could cover every house int he USA with enough solarcells to produce all the power neccesary + have batterys in every house for 1 week of electricity + build offshore wind farms for another complete energy supply
> 
> so fission power is just useless
> 
> considering the last 10 nuclear fission powerplants build and their price, 100 nuclear powerplants of 1000 Megawatt capacity would cost about 1500 billion dollars, just to build, not to fuel, the fuel in a lifetime would cost another 1 trillion dollars, the removal another 2 trillion dollars ... and then you have to find a place to put the radioactive waste for the next 1 million years.
> 
> sollar and wind is just so much cheaper
> 
> and thats not even considering the risk that some crazy muslims fly a plane into a nuclear reactor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * for the money that it takes to build 100 Fission nuclear powerplants you could cover every house int he USA with enough solarcells to produce all the power necessary*
> 
> That'd be awesome! And imagine the savings when people in Chicago (and colder regions) freeze to death during winter due to lack of USEFUL energy.
> 
> *so fission power is just useless*
> 
> If that's the case, solar and wind should be flushed as well.
Click to expand...

you might want to use the solar power from florida and texas in the winter + the offshore windpower all allong the east coast, and if you keep the snow off your roof, you can even get solar power in winter.

but if you earn  money from doing something else like poisoning the air  you will use every stupid argument you can think of.

i understand you won t be earning money from the usual shit  you get rich off oil , so fuck you why should you be making money of killing the planet ? when people could make money themselfs by supplying themselfs with energy.

you don t like it because you don t earn money anymore


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should immediately start building 100 new nuke plants in the US.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you have a place to put the ensuring nuclear waste away safely for the next 10 million years, and if those nuclear plants are 200% safe, so nothing like tchernobyl or fukushima can happen :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES YES YES
> 
> otherwise :
> 
> NO NO NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> if you have a place to put the ensuring nuclear waste away safely for the next 10 million years
> *
> The really radioactive stuff goes away in a couple of hundred years.
> *
> and if those nuclear plants are 200% safe
> *
> We need to save the planet from evil CO2.
> We need nukes.
> *
> so nothing like tchernobyl or fukushima can happen*
> 
> I agree, let's not use a really crappy Soviet design and lets avoid tidal waves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fukushia was a USA nuclear reactor design... maybe do a little research before answering
Click to expand...


Do a little reading before making another stupid comment.

and lets avoid tidal waves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> for the money that it takes to build 100 Fission nuclear powerplants you could cover every house int he USA with enough solarcells to produce all the power neccesary + have batterys in every house for 1 week of electricity + build offshore wind farms for another complete energy supply
> 
> so fission power is just useless
> 
> considering the last 10 nuclear fission powerplants build and their price, 100 nuclear powerplants of 1000 Megawatt capacity would cost about 1500 billion dollars, just to build, not to fuel, the fuel in a lifetime would cost another 1 trillion dollars, the removal another 2 trillion dollars ... and then you have to find a place to put the radioactive waste for the next 1 million years.
> 
> sollar and wind is just so much cheaper
> 
> and thats not even considering the risk that some crazy muslims fly a plane into a nuclear reactor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * for the money that it takes to build 100 Fission nuclear powerplants you could cover every house int he USA with enough solarcells to produce all the power necessary*
> 
> That'd be awesome! And imagine the savings when people in Chicago (and colder regions) freeze to death during winter due to lack of USEFUL energy.
> 
> *so fission power is just useless*
> 
> If that's the case, solar and wind should be flushed as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you might want to use the solar power from florid and texas in the winter + the offshore windpower all allong the east coast, and if you keep the snow off your roof, you can even get solar power in winter.
> 
> but if you earn  money from doing something else you will use every stupid argument you can think of.
> 
> i understand you won t be earning money from the usual shit
Click to expand...


*and if you keep the snow off your roof, you can even get solar power in winter.*

Not enough to keep you from freezing, but thanks anyway.

*but if you earn  money from doing something else you will use every stupid argument you can think of.*

Yeah, those green energy morons do that a lot. If we stop the government subsidies, they'd be out of business.


----------



## hauke

BTW i love fission powerplants.i just can t see them on earth. fission power belongs in space. it would be great for spaceships.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> BTW i love fission powerplants.i just can t see them on earth. fission power belongs in space. it would be great for spaceships.



If you want to build useful, solar power satellites, I'd support that.
Solar in Chicago would be Al Gore level moronic.


----------



## hauke

*and if you keep the snow off your roof, you can even get solar power in winter.*

Not enough to keep you from freezing, but thanks anyway.

*but if you earn  money from doing something else you will use every stupid argument you can think of.*

Yeah, those green energy morons do that a lot. If we stop the government subsidies, they'd be out of business.[/QUOTE]
if you have enough solar cells(thermo) at the right degree and a sufficent isolated house you can heat your house even in winter at chicago to have it inside nice and warm.

you have no clue about  technology exept burn the oil burn the coal

stoneage technology: burn it in the fireplace.

21 century tech : isolate use solarcells, remember we got electricity


----------



## hauke

germany got less sun then chicago yet somehow solar  technology works in germany.

your arguments are so dumb im embarresed for the human race that you make them


----------



## hauke

and new mexico collorado nevada southern california texas got about 4 times as much solar energy per square yard then germany

these places together are about 7 times the size of germany, yet germany has more solar power then the whole USA. embaressing


----------



## hauke

the USA got enough wind energy potential to supply all the energy used in the USA 40 times. but your not using it. embarising


----------



## hauke

instead of 21. century energy technology the USA is using 19. century coal and steam trechnology, so bad so embaricing


----------



## hauke

and the joke is :
if the USA would use the money to bomb people.
to build solar powered desalination plants in the sahara to produce forests in the desert we would need the CO2 to produce trees and still have enough CO2 in the atmosphere

plus there would be enough food so people don t go balistic and make war


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> *and if you keep the snow off your roof, you can even get solar power in winter.*
> 
> Not enough to keep you from freezing, but thanks anyway.
> 
> *but if you earn  money from doing something else you will use every stupid argument you can think of.*
> 
> Yeah, those green energy morons do that a lot. If we stop the government subsidies, they'd be out of business.


if you have enough solar cells(thermo) at the right degree and a sufficent isolated house you can heat your house even in winter at chicago to have it inside nice and warm.

you have no clue about  technology exept burn the oil burn the coal

stoneage technology: burn it in the fireplace.

21 century tech : isolate use solarcells, remember we got electricity[/QUOTE]

*if you have enough solar cells(thermo) at the right degree and a sufficent isolated house you can heat your house even in winter at chicago to have it inside nice and warm.*

Yes, if you waste enough money on "green energy" you can survive a Chicago winter.
If you burn enough money, you can do lots of things that make no sense.

*you have no clue about  technology exept burn the oil burn the coal*

That reminds me, stop fucking up the formatting, idiot.

*stoneage technology: burn it in the fireplace.*

Nuclear energy is a bit past stone age.
And it actually provides useful amounts of reliable energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> germany got less sun then chicago yet somehow solar  technology works in germany.
> 
> your arguments are so dumb im embarresed for the human race that you make them


*
germany got less sun then chicago yet somehow solar technology works in Germany.*

Sure does. They pay 3-4 times what we pay for electricity. DERP!

*your arguments are so dumb im embarresed*

Irony is ironic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> instead of 21. century energy technology the USA is using 19. century coal and steam trechnology, so bad so embaricing


*
instead of 21. century energy technology the USA is using 19. century coal and steam trechnology,*

Windmills are what, 12th Century? LOL!


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> Thanks you just admited that theres Human caused global warming.
> 
> now discussing the consequences becomes practical.
> 
> Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.
> 
> Man is the cause of higher CO2 levels : burning of fossile fuels + deforestation. measured co2 levels have been rising , measured scince about 1900.
> 
> Consequences : not possible to predict accurately as CO2 levels rise beyond anything in fossile records. possibility that earth turns into a Venus style greenhouse planet ? unknown. not possible to calculate.
> 
> hey lets just wait and see if the earth turns in another Venus killing everything on earth ! thats a great idea.
> 
> should it acctually happen you will concede i was right !.
> 
> uh your not you will be dead.
> 
> and if not who cares we all just move to the canadian rockys as the midwest turns into a shallow inland sea and the canadian tundra into a shallow sea. and that bangladesh and New York and all those other costal plaines sink underwater .. who cares.
> 
> the point is that if theres a risk of this kind, you should be able to prove it cannot happen, not that i have to prove it will happen.
> 
> can you prove that there is no climate catastrophe ?
> can you prove what its limits will be ?
> 
> prove that theres no risk no danger to your behavior or stop it.








I did?  Where?  You do realize it is against the Board rules to alter a members quotes, and it is also against the rules to misrepresent what they said.  I did NOT state that there is human caused global warming.  In fact I stated the exact opposite.  Your reference to Venus shows exactly how much of a scientific illiterate you are.  Venus is hot not because of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  It is hot because of the DENSITY of that CO2 in the atmosphere.  The Venusian atmosphere is 96.5% CO2.  The Earths atmosphere contains less than 1 percent CO2 in our atmosphere.  

Earth can NEVER get as hot as Venus, in fact it can get nowhere even close..  I suggest you actually do some basic research before you make a complete ass of yourself.  Oooops...too late...


----------



## hauke

i remember that right before i said you admited that global warming is man made, you admited in the post that theres global warming and its man made, im not sure where it is but anyway lets discussit, if you belive you didn t admit it, give your own quote and explain

btw i didn t quote you i directly answered your post

and the guy obove says "earth can never get as hot as venus"

so nr 1 : please prove thats true,
nr. 2.  why does it matter ? if earth average temperatur goes above 100 degrees celsius (300 degrees celsius  below venus) all life dies.

and its a venus type(TYPE) atmosphere

doesent have to be identical to kill all life


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> *Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.*
> 
> Can You read a thermometer to a degree and be accurate 1 out of 50 Times? What about the next person will he read it the same way as you?
> 
> What about the record keeping say in Alaska it didn't start till the 1950s,
> 
> In Africa around the 1970s...most all those early records came from the northern hemisphere , today we have computer digital readings world wide


you can t read a thermometer ??????????????

i can, most people can, its not difficult

if your such a moron you can t read a thermometer... don t talk about science.[/QUOTE]


You are the one moron who don't have a clue what you are talking about


hauke said:


> *Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.*
> 
> Can You read a thermometer to a degree and be accurate 1 out of 50 Times? What about the next person will he read it the same way as you?
> 
> What about the record keeping say in Alaska it didn't start till the 1950s,
> 
> In Africa around the 1970s...most all those early records came from the northern hemisphere , today we have computer digital readings world wide


you can t read a thermometer ??????????????

i can, most people can, its not difficult

if your such a moron you can t read a thermometer... don t talk about science.[/QUOTE]


Your the one who don't have a clue what your talking about....


What does this thermometer read

38.7 degrees?
38 degrees?
39.2 degrees?
39.5 degrees?


A poll what does this thermometer read?








Again no comeback we have proof their was 5times more C02 in the atmosphere in the Dion era, then today?


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> i remember that right before i said you admited that global warming is man made, you admited in the post that theres global warming and its man made, im not sure where it is but anyway lets discussit, if you belive you didn t admit it, give your own quote and explain
> 
> btw i didn t qoute you i directly answered your post
> 
> and the guy obove says "earth can never get as hot as venus"
> 
> so nr 1 : please prove thats true,
> nr. 2.  why does it matter ? if earth average temperatur goes above 100 degrees celsius (300 degrees celsius  below venus) all life dies.
> 
> and its a venus type(TYPE) atmosphere
> 
> doesent have to be identical to kill all life




Its density of the CO2 nimrod..

Mars also atmosphere is made up of mostly C02 at 95% plus...

You do we have rovers  on mars right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bear513 said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.*
> 
> Can You read a thermometer to a degree and be accurate 1 out of 50 Times? What about the next person will he read it the same way as you?
> 
> What about the record keeping say in Alaska it didn't start till the 1950s,
> 
> In Africa around the 1970s...most all those early records came from the northern hemisphere , today we have computer digital readings world wide
> 
> 
> 
> you can t read a thermometer ??????????????
> 
> i can, most people can, its not difficult
> 
> if your such a moron you can t read a thermometer... don t talk about science.
Click to expand...



You are the one moron who don't have a clue what you are talking about


hauke said:


> *Evidences are : its getting warmer globaly. measured with thermometers world wide scince 1880.*
> 
> Can You read a thermometer to a degree and be accurate 1 out of 50 Times? What about the next person will he read it the same way as you?
> 
> What about the record keeping say in Alaska it didn't start till the 1950s,
> 
> In Africa around the 1970s...most all those early records came from the northern hemisphere , today we have computer digital readings world wide


you can t read a thermometer ??????????????

i can, most people can, its not difficult

if your such a moron you can t read a thermometer... don t talk about science.[/QUOTE]


Your the one who don't have a clue what your talking about....


What does this thermometer read

38.7 degrees?
38 degrees?
39.2 degrees?
39.5 degrees?


A poll what does this thermometer read?








Again no comeback we have proof their was 5times more C02 in the atmosphere in the Dion era, then today?[/QUOTE]

*5times more C02 in the atmosphere in the Dion era*


----------



## hauke

interesting you show me thermometer in such a bad pixelated way nobody can say it exactly , why don t you give a close up of the relevant degree ? then i could decide.
and its a thermometer you buy at wallmart for 2$, not a scientific thermometer which costs 500$ the kind actually used.

scientists dont use household thermometers, for 2$

scientists use scientific thermometers, acurate to 1/100 degree costing 500$

but you think scientists use 2$ thermometers.. makes me understand why you don t trust scientists.

you think they use the shit you have.


----------



## hauke

the most expensive scientific instrument cost 50 billion dollars.

CERN

really you don t even understand what they are measureing

i think i have an idea, but i certainly don t know


----------



## hauke

please describe what CERN is doing

wikipedia CERN


----------



## hauke

CERN was build to find the Higgs particle, that is the particle that makes Mass, and doesent make sense to me. how can the particle of mass have more mass then the smallest mass ?
well im not a quantum physics

but still how can the higgs particle have more mass then an elektron at rest ?

more mass then a non moving photon


----------



## hauke

a non moving photon still has identity

photons in a bose einstein condensate

the photons are real even when they don t exist

its just propability ? 100% propable

this universe is  one where the photon exists


----------



## westwall

hauke said:


> i remember that right before i said you admited that global warming is man made, you admited in the post that theres global warming and its man made, im not sure where it is but anyway lets discussit, if you belive you didn t admit it, give your own quote and explain
> 
> btw i didn t quote you i directly answered your post
> 
> and the guy obove says "earth can never get as hot as venus"
> 
> so nr 1 : please prove thats true,
> nr. 2.  why does it matter ? if earth average temperatur goes above 100 degrees celsius (300 degrees celsius  below venus) all life dies.
> 
> and its a venus type(TYPE) atmosphere
> 
> doesent have to be identical to kill all life









You are lying through your teeth.  I have never stated that global warming is man made.  You had better watch what you say here.  I expect a complete and formal apology for your lie.


----------



## hauke

your so sad that i caught you.

why should i apoligize for saying the truth ?
will never happen.

how about you show what you said and i answered ??

or do i have to show what you said ?

P.S. could someone please find it and repost ?

im just too lazy to search

its about page 6-8 of this post


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> interesting you show me thermometer in such a bad pixelated way nobody can say it exactly , why don t you give a close up of the relevant degree ? then i could decide.
> and its a thermometer you buy at wallmart for 2$, not a scientific thermometer which costs 500$ the kind actually used.
> 
> scientists dont use household thermometers, for 2$
> 
> scientists use scientific thermometers, acurate to 1/100 degree costing 500$
> 
> but you think scientists use 2$ thermometers.. makes me understand why you don t trust scientists.
> 
> you think they use the shit you have.




Scientist don't use mercury filled thermometers any more that's one of the points

So again you going to tell me 5 people are going to read and record a thermomter the same exact way?

Also you lie...


Mercury Thermometers Are Going Extinct. What Will Replace Them?



It turns out that this change is for the better for more than environmental reasons: Mercury isn't even the most accurate way to measure temperature. *While mercury thermometers can measure temperature within one degree *Celsius, digital thermometers can be as accurate as 0.001 degrees C a difference of four orders of magnitude in accuracy.


----------



## hauke

no these days they don t use a 2$ digital thermometer either, they use a 2000$ digital thermometer.

same thing.

scientist don t use 2$ cheap shit, they use 2000$ calibrated high tech.

and before digital thermometers scientists didn t go to walmart to buy their thermometers for 2$ either, they went to suppliers of scientific thermometer acurate to 100/th degree which mercury thermometers are capable off, but they cost as much as a car in the old days. 2000$ thermometers in 1954 where as expensive as a car. and very accurate

they had compensations for airpressure

thinking back the 2000$ thermometers in 1950 might not have been mercury thermometers

the 1/10 degree acurate 200$ thermometers might have been

but walmart didn t sell them


----------



## hauke

yes a walmart thermometer like you showed is not a scientific instrument

do you really belive people are stupid enough to belive scientist use household items to measure ? like they use a potato scale to measure force ?take a cup to measure volumes of microliters ?


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> no these days they don t use a 2$ digital thermometer either, they use a 2000$ digital thermometer.
> 
> same thing.
> 
> scientist don t use 2$ cheap shit, they use 2000$ calibrated high tech.
> 
> and before digital thermometers scientists didn t go to walmart to buy their thermometers for 2$ either, they went to suppliers of scientific thermometer acurate to 100/th degree which mercury thermometers are capable off, but they cost as much as a car in the old days. 2000$ thermometers in 1954 where as expensive as a car. and very accurate
> 
> they had compensations for airpressure
> 
> thinking back the 2000$ thermometers in 1950 might not have been mercury thermometers
> 
> the 1/10 degree acurate 200$ thermometers might have been
> 
> but walmart didn t sell them




Again you lying krout show me a mercury thermometer accurate to a less of a degree? Put up or shut up.


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> yes a walmart thermometer like you showed is not a scientific instrument
> 
> do you really belive people are stupid enough to belive scientist use household items to measure ? like they use a potato scale to measure force ?take a cup to measure volumes of microliters ?



They didn't have anything else in the 1880s. *Think


They had a mercury thermometer...and the US government didn't even start calibrating them till 1901
*
So how can you say mercury thermometers were accurate between 1880~1901 in the United states?


Mercury Thermometers Face Final Phase Out


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> no these days they don t use a 2$ digital thermometer either, they use a 2000$ digital thermometer.
> 
> same thing.
> 
> scientist don t use 2$ cheap shit, they use 2000$ calibrated high tech.
> 
> and before digital thermometers scientists didn t go to walmart to buy their thermometers for 2$ either, they went to suppliers of scientific thermometer acurate to 100/th degree which mercury thermometers are capable off, but they cost as much as a car in the old days. 2000$ thermometers in 1954 where as expensive as a car. and very accurate
> 
> they had compensations for airpressure
> 
> thinking back the 2000$ thermometers in 1950 might not have been mercury thermometers
> 
> the 1/10 degree acurate 200$ thermometers might have been
> 
> but walmart didn t sell them




You are missing my point, 1880s is ancient technology not accurate till around the 1980s, scientific thermometers down to a 1/10th of a degree didn't appear to. The 1980s


So how could you use inaccurate data from the 1880s combine it with accurate data from 2016 and say the earth warmed up .04 a degree?

Imposible science.


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> yes a walmart thermometer like you showed is not a scientific instrument
> 
> do you really belive people are stupid enough to belive scientist use household items to measure ? like they use a potato scale to measure force ?take a cup to measure volumes of microliters ?




But you want people to believe the data in the 1880s is accurate as today's data, don't you see the problem with science here?


----------



## hauke

Again you lying krout show me a mercury thermometer accurate to a less of a degree? Put up or shut up.[/QUOTE]
i don t know about USA mercury thermometers.
when i was in highschool in germany,
in chemistry and physics we had German made thermometers which were capable of showing 1/100 degrees celsius.

maybe american instrument makers are just idiots ?

or your an idiot and have no clue ?

did you major in football at your colledge or physics ?


----------



## hauke

bear513 said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes a walmart thermometer like you showed is not a scientific instrument
> 
> do you really belive people are stupid enough to belive scientist use household items to measure ? like they use a potato scale to measure force ?take a cup to measure volumes of microliters ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you want people to believe the data in the 1880s is accurate as today's data, don't you see the problem with science here?
Click to expand...

actually today scientific thermometers can measure much more acurate then 135 years ago, its now possible to measure temperatures in the normal range of -40 to 90 degree celsius range acurate to 1/millionth of a degree. so your right there because 1880 scientist could only measure  accurately to 1/1000 th of a degree, which is totally sufficent to identify global warming, so there your argument is a fail


----------



## hauke

its a bit like donald trump thinking 75 years ago people faught with swords and spears, you know hand to hand.

scientists had developed measuring scince about the 15th century and in 1880 they scientific instruments where very acurate, capable of measuring 1/1000 th of a degree temperature 1/1000 of a mm distance and 1/1000th of a second of time, 1/1000000 of a gram weight


----------



## hauke

just use google moron

and its KRAUT not krout whatever that means

you can t even use the correct word for that, google krout and kraut


----------



## hauke

i personnaly think you lost the argument about global warming when you started trying to make thermometers inacurcurate.

150 years ago thermometers in celsius showed 0 degrees at the freezing point and 100 degrees at the boiling point.

there were 100 scale points inbetween.

scientific thermometers were larger so that it was possible to diffrincate between 100/th degrees, but they accurately showed the temperature.

to argue that is insane

or shows that the person argueing has no clue at all about how mercury thermometer work.

which means that his arguments are insane.

P.S i have no clue how to include media so i don t, just google for "scientific thermometer 1900"

then you get a picture or 2000


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> its a bit like donald trump thinking 75 years ago people faught with swords and spears, you know hand to hand.
> 
> scientists had developed measuring scince about the 15th century and in 1880 they scientific instruments where very acurate, capable of measuring 1/1000 th of a degree temperature 1/1000 of a mm distance and 1/1000th of a second of time, 1/1000000 of a gram weight



*and in 1880 they scientific instruments where very acurate, capable of measuring 1/1000 th of a degree temperature*

Could you show us one of those?


----------



## hauke

oops remembered just got my old feverthermometer out, its mercury and accurate to 1/10 of a degree, so fuck you


----------



## hauke

this is the 21st century i don t have to show you anything just google and find the truth.

if i showed you anything it might be a lie

google find the truth

google :"temperature measurement 1880"

wikipedia temperature

wikipedia history of temperature measurements

google it too

wikipedia thermometer

don just trust me to show you what i belive is the truth go get the truth


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> oops remembered just got my old feverthermometer out, its mercury and accurate to 1/10 of a degree, so fuck you



Where is the one from 1880, accurate to 1/1000th of a degree?

Or is it in your ass?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> this is the 21st century i don t have to show you anything just google and find the truth.
> 
> if i showed you anything it might be a lie
> 
> google find the truth



Liar says what?


----------



## hauke

just stop argueing . just say ;"i don t care about facts, thermometers are inacurate so we can t now what temperature it is, thats what i belive.scientists lie, my belive trumps science thats why i vote trump."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> just stop argueing . just say ;"i don t care about facts, thermometers are inacurate so we can t now what temperature it is, thats what i belive.scientists lie, my belive trumps science thats why i vote trump."



Is pointing out your lies really arguing?


----------



## hauke

your not pointing out my "lies" your using circular reason to explain why your telling the truth because your telling the truth

your not using valid arguments you are saying :"i say this is truth" then your saying because i said its truth it is truth

basicly you are a vacuum of truth, and cannot say anything truthfull


----------



## hauke

this is a discussion on the web.
in the web truth can be easyliy verified independantly of what a poster says.

you are repeatingly requireing me to give prove, which i really can t. because any "prove" i give could be a lie.

on the other hand any of my or your statements can be verified or falsified on the net. (google wikipedia or a million diffrent websites.)

you can access scientific america on the net.

you can access the USA geological service on the net.

the data is available.

i can t prove it . scientific america can.

don t ask me for prove, verify the data yourself.

think for yourself access the data


----------



## hauke

access the data to accuracy of scientific instruments, don t belive me , but you have to belive that history isn t just made up

which basicly would mean that the history that the USA was founded in 1776 is made up too


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> your not pointing out my "lies" your using circular reason to explain why your telling the truth because your telling the truth
> 
> your not using valid arguments you are saying :"i say this is truth" then your saying because i said its truth it is truth
> 
> basicly you are a vacuum of truth, and cannot say anything truthfull



*your not pointing out my "lies"
*
You said,* "and in 1880 they scientific instruments where very acurate, capable of measuring 1/1000 th of a degree temperature"
*
That's a lie.


----------



## ScienceRocks

The price on the price tag doesn't tell the whole story. The rising sea levels, the extreme storms and the destruction that global warming needs to be factored into why we should spend a little more now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Matthew said:


> The price on the price tag doesn't tell the whole story. The rising sea levels, the extreme storms and the destruction that global warming needs to be factored into why we should spend a little more now.



Or, in the case of Germany, 3-4 times as much.


----------



## Old Rocks

BluesLegend said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey
> 
> Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem clueless to the amount of really toxic waste generated by manufacturing batteries for your 'green' car.
Click to expand...

Care to link to sources that give us information on how much toxic waste i generated by manufacturing batteries that power EV's?


----------



## Old Rocks

Ray From Cleveland said:


> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are.  But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable.  And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.
Click to expand...

Oh my, 'many people say' meme again. So provide some figures from a credible source. Or shut up.


----------



## BluesLegend

Old Rocks said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey
> 
> Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem clueless to the amount of really toxic waste generated by manufacturing batteries for your 'green' car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care to link to sources that give us information on how much toxic waste i generated by manufacturing batteries that power EV's?
Click to expand...


Good grief, I read the news don't you? Here's a link www.poorlyinformedlibdrones.com


----------



## Moonglow

I have a bicycle set up to run emergence power for times when the juice is out...I just hope I don't get a flat..


----------



## hauke

im a moron but i belive strongly so whatever i say is truth, never google don t ever use science on me, science is evil it proves things i don t need prove i BELIVE things so im right and science is wrong because i belive im right and science is wrong and true belive is truth, did i mention im a moron ?


----------



## Andylusion

Old Rocks said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> davecmarino said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Ivanpah is a failure.  If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.
> 
> The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.
> 
> The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.
> 
> Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.
> 
> If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology.  If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.
> 
> Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.
> 
> Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of our customers was a big lib.  He had a big windmill running his operations.  I always found windmills decorative in a way.  Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.
> 
> About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone.  The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill.  He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.
> 
> Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time.  I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie.  After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Average life on a windmill is about 22 years. Many manufacturers base their calculations on 40 years but this is not reality based. 8 years is not the norm on a small commercial system. That is what one would expect out of something you buy off eBay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know where you are getting your figures from or how accurate they are.  But windmills do break down before they are absolutely unrepairable.  And from what I understand, the costs of repair and maintenance outweigh the savings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my, 'many people say' meme again. So provide some figures from a credible source. Or shut up.
Click to expand...


The average lifespan of a wind mill is not 22 years.   That's what governments and manufacturers make up, to justify the cost.

Wind farm turbines wear sooner than expected, says study

The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years.

*The study estimates that routine wear and tear will more than double the cost of electricity being produced by wind farms in the next decade.*​Any questions?


----------



## hauke

question: is it cost efficent if an energy scource produces more energy then its production costs ?

what if the energy cost is only produced after the energy scource is gone ? how do you calculate the cost ?

im thinking of nuclear energy for example or fossile fuel.

how much does it cost to keep the  radioactive garbage safe for 1 million years ? how much will the climate change because of the co2 cost ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> im a moron but i belive strongly so whatever i say is truth, never google don t ever use science on me, science is evil it proves things i don t need prove i BELIVE things so im right and science is wrong because i belive im right and science is wrong and true belive is truth, did i mention im a moron ?



*im a moron but i belive strongly so whatever i say is truth,*

Glad you finally admitted the truth.


----------



## hauke

_your affordability is about your next paycheck, the left worrys about the time your new born child gets to vote, and his child gets to vote,

its very simple right wing people worry about today
 left wing people worry about tommorow, next year next century and about if the human race will exist in 10 000 years.

right wing, just today, whats the price of a hamburger today_


----------



## hauke

toddsterpatriot you look like a clown but  you don t get a joke

you look like a clown from stephen kings IT


----------



## hauke

i have an idea if you think burning oil or coal is affordable, i sugest that you breath the result of the burning of oil and coal, get your head into the chimney, if you can afford to breath the chimmney gasses for  just 1 hour... lets talk after you did that.

or maybe you just start up your car in your closed garage, if you survive for 1 hour  we talk more, or maybe you define affordable in a perspective of survivale not money


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> Again you lying krout show me a mercury thermometer accurate to a less of a degree? Put up or shut up.


i don t know about USA mercury thermometers.
when i was in highschool in germany,
in chemistry and physics we had German made thermometers which were capable of showing 1/100 degrees celsius.

maybe american instrument makers are just idiots ?

or your an idiot and have no clue ?

did you major in football at your colledge or physics ?[/QUOTE]


Still can't prove they had that pre 1990?


----------



## hauke

omg still thermometers ? didn t find google yet?

Google

Thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> _your affordability is about your next paycheck, the left worrys about the time your new born child gets to vote, and his child gets to vote,
> 
> its very simple right wing people worry about today
> left wing people worry about tommorow, next year next century and about if the human race will exist in 10 000 years.
> 
> right wing, just today, whats the price of a hamburger today_



_*your affordability is about your next paycheck*
_
Yes, losing your job and not being able to heat your house is a concern of the right.
_
*the left worrys about the time your new born child gets to vote, and his child gets to vote,*
_
Yeah, 18 years of giving tax dollars to cronies is a very left position.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> toddsterpatriot you look like a clown but  you don t get a joke
> 
> you look like a clown from stephen kings IT



The clown is Obama. He is scary. And a joke.


----------



## hauke

think Idiocracy, they froze an mccarthy idiot in 1954 and unfroze him in 2354, and he was still the most stupid around


----------



## hauke

and the paycheck thing.. thats why the left wants to raise the minimum wage so you can pay your dept

your an american not a billionaer so i asume your in dept

and i asume your not donald trump then you would claim to be a billionaer while being in dept


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hauke said:


> and the paycheck thing.. thats why the left wants to raise the minimum wage so you can pay your dept
> 
> your an american not a billionaer so i asume your in dept
> 
> and i asume your not donald trump then you would claim to be a billionaer while being in dept



Yes, driving companies out of business and reducing employment always helps the paycheck thing. Derp!


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> omg still thermometers ? didn t find google yet?
> 
> Google
> 
> Thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Show me a mercury thermometer with 10,000 markings on it to represent 100th of a degree


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

bear513 said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> omg still thermometers ? didn t find google yet?
> 
> Google
> 
> Thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a thermometer with 10,000 markings on it to represent 100th of a degree
Click to expand...


He'd show you, but it's in German......


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> omg still thermometers ? didn t find google yet?
> 
> Google
> 
> Thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




So where in that thread does it say a *Mercury thermometer can read to the 100th degree tard*?

From your link..

The *precision* or *resolution* of a thermometer is simply to what fraction of a degree it is possible to make a reading. For high temperature work it may only be possible to measure to the nearest 10 °C or more. Clinical thermometers and many electronic thermometers are usually readable to 0.1 °C. Special instruments can give readings to one thousandth of a degree.[_citation needed_]


----------



## Wyatt earp

bear513 said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> omg still thermometers ? didn t find google yet?
> 
> Google
> 
> Thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So where in that thread does it say a *Mercury thermometer can read to the 100th degree tard*?
> 
> From your link..
> 
> The *precision* or *resolution* of a thermometer is simply to what fraction of a degree it is possible to make a reading. For high temperature work it may only be possible to measure to the nearest 10 °C or more. Clinical thermometers and many electronic thermometers are usually readable to 0.1 °C. Special instruments can give readings to one thousandth of a degree.[_citation needed_]
Click to expand...



Haha check this out clinical thermometer (medical) it took 20 minutes and later 5 minutes to get an accurate temperature..

Medical thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thermometers remained cumbersome to transport and use. *By the mid 19th century, the medical thermometer was still a foot long (30.28 cm) and took as long as twenty minutes to take an accurate temperature reading.* Between 1866-1867, Sir Thomas Clifford Allbutt(1836–1925) designed a medical thermometer that was much more portable, *measuring only six inches long and taking only five minutes to record a patient's temperatur*e.[1][2]


----------



## Andylusion

hauke said:


> _your affordability is about your next paycheck, the left worrys about the time your new born child gets to vote, and his child gets to vote,
> 
> its very simple right wing people worry about today
> left wing people worry about tommorow, next year next century and about if the human race will exist in 10 000 years.
> 
> right wing, just today, whats the price of a hamburger today_



Actually you have that reversed.

The left wing consistently worries about today, and sacrifices the future.

Take Medicare.   Let's give out trillions of dollars in entitlements, that we have absolutely no money to pay for, because we want free stuff today.

They have absolutely no clue, no plans, and no consideration for the future tax payers that will be forced to pay larger and larger amounts of their pay checks, to pay the trillions on trillions of debt the left-wing is blowing money on today.

The left consistently sacrifices their children future, on the alter of the present day.

Take the stimulus package of 2009.  By definition that was a short term bandaide.   The between that and other expensive policies supported by Obama, and the Democrats, there was absolutely no thought to the long term consequences of multi-Trillion dollar deficits.

And you want to try and claim that your energy policy proves you think about the future?   What kind of future?   One where people can't afford power?   The UK already charges it's customers more than double the price for electricity than the US, and their wind power is projected to nearly double that cost.

What future are you looking forward to?  One where people can't even afford to dry their clothing in a drier?


----------



## Andylusion

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> 
> toddsterpatriot you look like a clown but  you don t get a joke
> 
> you look like a clown from stephen kings IT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The clown is Obama. He is scary. And a joke.
Click to expand...


No, honestly, Obama is not a clown.  He's not a joke.  and he's not scary.

Obama is just wrong.  He's wrong about the positions he has.  They are bad wrong position.

Hillary..... Hillary is a freakin Criminal.  She *IS* scary.   More than scary, she's downright dangerous, felon lying, white trash.      Hillary has no morals, no honesty, no integrity.

I'd vote for Obama a hundred times over Hillary (assuming no better alternative existed).


----------



## hauke

Google

Thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/QUOTE]


Show me a mercury thermometer with 10,000 markings on it to represent 100th of a degree[/QUOTE]

if you want to see one go to a science museum. if your too dumb to find a museum ? don t ask me andd stop being an idiot on the internet


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> Google
> 
> Thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Show me a mercury thermometer with 10,000 markings on it to represent 100th of a degree[/QUOTE]

if you want to see one go to a science museum. if your too dumb to find a museum ? don t ask me andd stop being an idiot on the internet[/QUOTE]


Still don't have one huh?

Let me guess you think they had these in 1901


----------



## Wyatt earp

hauke said:


> Google
> 
> Thermometer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Show me a mercury thermometer with 10,000 markings on it to represent 100th of a degree[/QUOTE]

if you want to see one go to a science museum. if your too dumb to find a museum ? don t ask me andd stop being an idiot on the internet[/QUOTE]


What's the matter Hauke, you affraid I already know the answer?

Ok Hayek, do you think the temperature remains between 34c and 42c Celsius?  Do you know what year they came out with these? I do.


----------

