# The Solar Swindle



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power.  Don't believe a word of it.  One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:

American Thinker- Print Article

_Solar electricity is growing, promoted, and most importantly, heavily subsidized. The promoters of solar electricity claim that it is close to being competitive with conventional sources of electricity. That is a fantasy. 

Solar electricity is expensive and impractical. If it weren't for government subsidies, some explicit and some disguised, the solar industry would collapse. The many claims of competitiveness are always based on ignoring subsidies provided to politically correct renewable power, ignoring the costs associated with unreliability, and ignoring the cost of backup fossil fuel plants. 

An example of a hidden subsidy is the California Renewable Portfolio Standard that mandates utilities to obtain 33% of their energy from so-called renewable sources by 2020. This mandate forces utilities to contract for expensive sources of energy, such as solar. The cost is passed on to the utility customers with the connivance of the government. Although the motivation behind the California scheme is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, politically incorrect sources of CO2-free electricity, such as nuclear and large-scale hydroelectric, can't be counted as renewable. 

People whose knowledge of electricity production ends at their wall outlet are dictating national energy policy. Magical thinking by hopelessly ignorant political activists permeates the alternative energy universe. 

How much does electricity from conventional sources cost? If I look at my ComEd (Chicago) bill, the charge for electricity is about 5 cents per kilowatt-hour (KWH). Additional charges for delivering the electricity and various taxes increase the total to about 10 cents per KWH. This is electricity mainly from coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Electricity is available at the plant gate in much of the U.S. for about 5 cents per KWH.​_


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

*The American Thinker? A far rightwing nutcase rag. *

Solar Industry Data | SEIA

Solar Industry Data
Download the Q3 2013 SMI Factsheet 
U.S. PV Market Installs 930 Megawatts in Q3 2013; Second Largest Quarter Ever
The third quarter of 2013 was the second largest on record for the U.S. solar industry. There were 930 MW of new photovoltaic capacity installed in Q3 2013, representing a 35 percent increase in deployment over the third quarter of 2012. The strong third quarter keeps the U.S. market on pace for another record year. SEIA and GTM Research forecast that an additional 1,780 MW of PV and 800 MW of concentrating solar (CSP) will be installed in the fourth quarter of 2013 alone, bringing the total for the year to over 5,000 MW of new solar electric capacity.

*5 gw of new solar this year in the US alone.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

Continually declining solar photovoltaic (PV) prices will continue to power an international market surge, with annual installations doubling by 2020 en route to grid parity around the world.

This bright outlook shines through Navigant Research&#8217;s most recent &#8220;Solar PV Market Forecasts&#8221; and estimates solar PV will be cost-competitive with retail electricity prices without subsidies in nearly every electricity market by 2017.

Even though each international energy market presents different conditions for solar PV&#8217;s growth, Navigant expects overall solar energy costs  to continue falling while overall installations and industry revenue keep climbing.


Read more at Global Solar PV Installations Will Double, Hit Grid Parity By 2020

*35 gw installed worldwide this year.*


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> *The American Thinker? A far rightwing nutcase rag. *
> 
> Solar Industry Data | SEIA
> 
> ...



Electricity consumers are getting fucked up the ass for every watt of solar installed.

That's the bottom line.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

Name any energy resource that is not subsidized.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Continually declining solar photovoltaic (PV) prices will continue to power an international market surge, with annual installations doubling by 2020 en route to grid parity around the world.
> 
> This bright outlook shines through Navigant Researchs most recent Solar PV Market Forecasts and estimates solar PV will be cost-competitive with retail electricity prices without subsidies in nearly every electricity market by 2017.
> 
> ...



How can the cost of solar be comparable to conventional energy sources if every watt of solar requires a watt of conventional energy to back it up?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Name any energy resource that is not subsidized.



Coal, Oil, Natural Gas.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Name any energy resource that is not subsidized.
> ...





Thanks for showing us your ignorance.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.



A $35,000 solar installation produces enough electricity to power a hair dryer.  How is anyone possibly going to charge their EV with such a source?  And then what happens at night? Every watt of solar requires a watt of conventional backup.  How can that possibly be as cheap as just relying on conventional?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



I showed everyone your ignorance.   Claims about subsidies to fossil fuels are grossly exaggerated.  Furthermore, they aren't in the slightest bit necessary.  Solar, on the other hand, wouldn't exist without subsidies.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Are the claims exaggerated or the claims outright false?

Because theres a difference and you're trying to move the goal posts.  First you said they arent subsidized at all.  

Now you say...


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Tax exemptions and credits are not subsidies-----------you don't know what the word 'subsidy' means do you?


----------



## Mustang (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power.  Don't believe a word of it.  One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:
> 
> American Thinker- Print Article
> 
> ...




The problem conservatives have with solar energy is that it can't be controlled and exploited like other conventional sources of energy that come from mines, and oil wells etc.  And why would that be? Because nobody owns the sun. 

Consequently, any source of energy that's potentially a rival to the owners of conventional sources of energy who are accustomed to profiting off the exploitation of natural resources, they can expect a dirty fight to keep their energy source as expensive and as unavailable as possible.

Meanwhile, let's pony up some more tax breaks for Exxon-Mobile.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

ClosedCaption said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Oil is the most heavily taxed commodity in the world.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

Mustang said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power.  Don't believe a word of it.  One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:
> ...



Not at all, we should be using solar, but it should be fiscally viable on its own.  

BTW,  solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Name any energy resource that is not subsidized.
> ...



Well, Pattycake, you are either a liar, or totally ignorant.

Renewable energy subsidies prop up an otherwise economically-unviable industry. We should ?level the playing field? by removing clean energy handouts and let renewables compete with fossil fuels. | Energy Fact Check

The oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries have received approximately $630 billion in United States government subsidies, while wind, solar, biofuels and other renewable sectors have received a total of roughly $50 billion in government investments in cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies.  (Source: DBL Investors, http://bit.ly/uV14lf)
On a pre-tax basis, subsidies for fossil fuels reached $480 billion in 2011. On a post-tax basiswhich also factors in the negative externalities from energy consumptionsubsidies are much higher at $1.9 trillion globally in 2011. (Source: International Monetary Fund, http://bit.ly/11MVcO0)
One proposal from the Brookings Institute to eliminate 12 subsidies to help level the playing field among fossil fuel producers relative to other businesses estimates deficit-reduction savings of $41 billion over 10 years. They go on to report that, the U.S. government effectively transfers by way of tax expenditures more than $4 billion annually from taxpayers to fossil fuel producers (primarily oil and gas firms) with very little to show for it. (Source: Brookings Institute, Eliminating Fossil Fuel Subsidies | Brookings Institution)


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY20/20130313/100476/HHRG-113-SY20-Wstate-HutzlerM-20130313.pdf



> The federal government has provided various forms of financial support for the development and production of fuels and energy technologies over the past several decades and that support is growing. The Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent agency of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), evaluated the amount of subsidies that the federal government provides energy producers with its most recent information for fiscal year 2010. Over a 3*&#8208;year period, from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2010, total federal energy subsidies increased from $17.9 billion to $37.2 billion, an increase of 108 percent over the 3*&#8208;year period. The largest increases in federal energy subsidies were in renewable and end&#8208;use subsidies. Over the 3&#8208;year period:
> 
> Renewable energy subsidies increased by 186 percent from $5.1 billion to $14.7 billion.
> &#8226; Wind led the various renewables with a more than 10-fold increase in subsidy from  $476 million to $4,986 million.
> ...



Solar got $1.113 billion in subsidies.  Coil, oil, and natural gas received $4.178 billion in subsidies during the same period.

Wind power was the biggest winner.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Dec 30, 2013)

Redfish said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Not the subject at all but thx


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

Redfish said:


> BTW,  solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.



Solar cells charge batteries which can operate in the dark.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY20/20130313/100476/HHRG-113-SY20-Wstate-HutzlerM-20130313.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...



how many tax dollars did the oil, coal, and gas industries pump into the US treasury?   how much did solar?  

Tax credits for exploration are not subsidies,  direct payments and no-pay-back loans to solar companies (solyndra) are subsidies.

if you are going to use the word, at least understand what it means


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY20/20130313/100476/HHRG-113-SY20-Wstate-HutzlerM-20130313.pdf
> ...


Irony!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.
> ...



My, my, dumbfuck really demonstrating his ignorance.

Grid tie Solar Power Systems - Grid tie Solar Panel Systems

Everything but the wracking for a 5 kw system, $8,500. 600 kw hrs a month. And the price is coming down on the systems every month.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > BTW,  solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
> ...



Yes, and those batteries are very expensive, contain hazardous materials, and have a short life.   I thought you libs were against poisoning mother earth with hazardous waste.   Where ya gonna put all the old batteries?


----------



## Mustang (Dec 30, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Both active and passive solar power are not meant to completely replace any and all other forms of power.  They augment them so we're not required to rely 100% on those other power sources. But they end up paying for themselves over a relatively short period of time, and people can actually sell excess power back to the electric company for credit on their bill.  That's not a bad deal when you think about it. Imagine coming back from a vacation and finding out your solar panels were making you money while you were away, or that your solar panels are doing the same thing for you during the day when nobody is home. Your furnace is never going to do that for you, is it?


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



people only put those solar systems on their houses because they get 80% of the cost as a tax exemption.   Thats the point,  solar today is not fiscally viable.  Someday I hope it will be and that every house will have solar panels,  but we are not there yet.

Want it to happen?   get the fricken govt out of it and let the profit motive operate.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

Mustang said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



All that is true and great.  Someday I hope it will be a reality.  Let private capital work on it, let the profit motive drive innovation and we will get there.   Get the incompetent govt out of it.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Dec 30, 2013)

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Which is it the batteries dont work or the batteries do work but they are expensive?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > BTW,  solar only works when the sun is out----------let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
> ...



And, as the work on the batteries continue, we will see EV class batteries for half the cost of the present batteries with four times, or more, the power of the present batteries. At that cost, a home installation is a very viable commodity for many homeowners. Combine that with an EV and you have a homeowner both independent of the petroleum companies and utilities.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

Until solar panels make a giant leap forward, they are not going to be financially sustainable.  I believe that giant leap forward is just around the corner, though.  People would have scoffed at the idea that a computer the size of a city block would one day be small enough to wear on our wrists.

I do like tracking photovoltaic plants.  Such a plant, coupled with a nuclear power plant for power at night, is an ideal setup, and one which is a reality in Arizona as we speak.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

October of this year: Abengoa&#8217;s Solana, the US&#8217;s first large-scale solar plant with thermal energy storage system, begins commercial operation



> Solana is the first solar plant in the U.S. with a thermal energy storage system that is able to generate electricity for six hours without the concurrent use of the solar field, which is a turning point for renewable energy in this country, being a tangible demonstration that solar energy can be stored and dispatched upon demand.
> 
> Solana, located near Gila Bend and about 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, Arizona, began construction in 2010 and on Monday, October 7, successfully fulfilled production forecasts required to date and testing for commercial operation. These tests included *operating at the turbine&#8217;s full capacity while charging the thermal storage system, continuing to produce electricity after the sun went down, and starting up the plant and producing 6 hours of electricity using only the thermal storage system*. These tests successfully demonstrated the various operation modes of the plant&#8217;s operation.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...





Look at you desperately shifting goalposts all over the map to conceal  your ignorance.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> October of this year: Abengoas Solana, the USs first large-scale solar plant with thermal energy storage system, begins commercial operation
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great,  how does the total cost/kwh compare to a oil, gas, or coal fired plant?   Do you know?  Do you care?   How about the lizards that it will kill,  don't they deserve a home in the desert?   Do you libs love lizards or hate them?  I have heard you say both.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



The batteries in the Tesla are gaurenteed for 8 years, with unlimited mileage. What is the engine in your present car gaurenteed for?


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

The Abengoa solar plant uses large tanks of molten salt to store the heat energy produced by the parabolic trough technology.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Not at all.  those big batteries are very expensive, require exotic materials, and are hazardous waste when used up.   

Just stating facts, sorry if you choose to ignore facts that confuse you.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



If you leave a Tesla parked in an Arizona parking lot for two weeks, you will be coming home to a brick.  You would have to replace the batteries right then and there.

It costs $12,000 for a new battery pack for the Tesla.  How many gallons of gas would that buy?  How many years would it take to use that much gas?

That's about 90,000 miles if gas was $4.00 a gallon.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Tesla car battery fires probed by US safety agency

my engine probably won't catch fire or need a special very expensive disposal procedure.   It was guaranteed for 5 years or 50,000 miles, with free routine service. (BMW)


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> The Abengoa solar plant uses large tanks of molten salt to store the heat energy produced by the parabolic trough technology.



great,  I guess all of that was free------------------------------


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

So what have we learned?

We have learned that some people were ignorant of the fact that all energy sources receive government subsidies.

We have learned that solar power still has a way to go to be financially viable.  But since all energy sources depend on government subsidies, that seems to be true for all of them. 

We have learned that solar energy is making advances.  Just as internal combustion technology took a century to improve, and is still improving, so it will be with solar technology.  It does not come out of the box at its most efficient and productive state, and no technology ever did.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

Redfish said:


> let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.



Um...

Already been done: SOLAR IMPULSE - AROUND THE WORLD IN A SOLAR AIRPLANE








Thanks for playing!


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



All true. But how many miles did the early ICE's get before they had to be rebuilt, or junked? And what was there cost? These new types of batteries are a new technology, and will not only cost far less in the future, but have a great deal more power.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> So what have we learned?
> 
> We have learned that some people were ignorant of the fact that all energy sources receive government subsidies.
> 
> ...



Nope,  what we have learned is that fossil fuels get tax exemptions for exploration expenses and pay huge amounts of taxes to state and federal governments.  

we have also learned that you do not understand what a subsidy is.

we have also learned that solar, while possibly the power of the future, is not fiscally viable yet and that govt 'subsidies' have not made it become fiscally viable.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.


much nonsense. MUCH!


----------



## ClosedCaption (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
> ...




Next dodge: But it wasnt on a Wednesday!


----------



## Redfish (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
> ...



right, one guy in a cellophane plane,  great.   international air travel will never be the same.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY20/20130313/100476/HHRG-113-SY20-Wstate-HutzlerM-20130313.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you'll find that the so-called "subsidies" for coal, oil and natural gas aren't really subsidies at all.  They include things like paying part of the cost of home heating oil for low-income seniors.  That isn't a subsidy to the oil companies, no matter how much the enemies of reason and common sense want to paint it that way.

Peter Foster: The bogus debate over fossil-fuel subsidies

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/04/peter-foster-the-bogus-debate-over-fossil-fuel-subsidies/

http://marshall.org/energy-policy/attack-on-oil-subsidies-a-ruse/



> The current attack on oil company &#8220;subsidies&#8221; is a ruse to make gasoline more scarce and to shift blame for high prices. It will fail but be costly and disruptive in the process.
> 
> The subsidy charges are bogus. Of the four mentioned most often&#8211;depletion allowance, intangible drilling costs, manufacturers tax credit and foreign income tax credit&#8211;two apply to all business. The manufacturing tax credit was designed to promote domestic job creation while the foreign tax credit is in place to prevent double taxation. The US already has the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.
> 
> The depletion allowance is only available to small, independent oil and gas producers, of which there are about 18,000. Major oil companies have not been able to use it since 1978. The ability to deduct intangible drilling costs like wages, the costs of drilling muds, survey work, etc. is no different than deductions of the operating expenses by any business. The ability to write these off in oil and gas exploration is recognition of large up front costs and the fact finding oil and gas also involves a lot of dry holes. The immediate write off provides a one time lower tax bill. After that, taxable revenue is higher. The government is not losing anything. Eliminating it would discriminate against oil and gas exploration and reduce domestic production.



http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/the-truth-about-all-those-subsidies-for-big-oil/



> The truth is that the oil and gas industry receives the same kinds of tax treatments that every other manufacturing or extractive industry receives in the federal tax code.  There is nothing uncommon or out of the mainstream of tax treatments about any of the provisions that have been repeatedly proposed for repeal.
> 
> 1. A great example of just how inaccurate this depiction is applies to Percentage Depletion, which has been a feature of the tax code since 1913.  Basically, Percentage Depletion is the oil and gas industry&#8217;s version of a depreciation deduction for its main asset, which is the oil and natural gas in the ground, commonly known as its reserves. Every industry of any kind is allowed a depreciation deduction on its assets under the U.S. Tax Code, but, far from being a &#8220;subsidy&#8221; for &#8220;big oil&#8221;, this tax treatment was in fact repealed for all integrated oil companies, i.e., ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, etc., in 1975, and is today available only to independent producers and royalty owners. So repeal of this extremely long-standing, completely common tax treatment would have no effect on &#8220;big oil&#8221; at all, and would in fact hit small producers and royalty owners harder than anyone else.
> 
> ...


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

ClosedCaption said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Sure it is.  Any talk of "subsidies" has to include all the revenue the government earns from income taxes on oil company profits and excise taxes on gasoline and other fossil fuels.  the government receives no revenue at all from wind or solar energy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Cars were economically viable from virtually the first day they were manufactured.  They had the added advantage of taking up far less space than required for two horses and a carriage.  Plus, they didn't leave mountains of horse manure behind them to attract flies, typhus and countless other diseases.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > let us know how you make on the first night flight on a solar airplane.
> ...



How many passengers can it carry?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



And what did it cost to build?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So you can power 3 hair dryers at high noon for $8,500?  How many can you power at 8:00 PM?  My electric bill is about $200/month.  So it would take about 8 years to amortize this investment, and that assumes I would never need electricity from any other source. I assume a "rack" and installation would mean additional cost.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Well yes, for dumbies that can't use their hands. For the rest of us, just the cost of materials and time.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Really?  How many people do you think are capable to install a solar system?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Hmmmmmmmm...............   But then who would expect you to know what 5 kw can do.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



How many watts do you imagine an electric oven requires?  How about air conditioning?  Central heating?


----------



## Dutch (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power.  Don't believe a word of it.  One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:
> 
> American Thinker- Print Article
> 
> ...



19th Century America:

"I'll tell you what, Caruthers, that new electric lamp cost too much and it's impractical.  Why what will they thank of next, a flying machine."


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

Dutch said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power.  Don't believe a word of it.  One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:
> ...



No such conversation ever took place.  Electricity was cheaper than gas lighting from day one, and it was far safer.

See, that's the problem with libturds:  everything they know about the past is pure fiction.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

Senate Rejects Attempt to End Oil Subsidies



> Senate Democrats pressed for a vote Thursday to end some $20 billion in federal subsidies to the largest oil and gas companies. The vote failed, as Democrats knew it would. The effort was a political gesture aimed at highlighting Republican support for the biggest oil companies at a time when some people are struggling to afford filling their gas tanks.





> The bill would have affected subsidies paid to BP, Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips.





> Democrats had proposed redirecting some of the $20 billion from the subsidies to renew a series of tax credits aimed at manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines and electric cars.



If that $20 billion of subsidies was not real, then how would it be redirected to solar, wind, and electric cars?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

I see the far left posters are at it again:

Solar power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The average recuperation of the solar panels on a house is close to 30 years. Not to mention that there are environmental groups that are opposed to large solar farms.

Wind power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The average recuperation is 25 years pending on how big and how many turbines are set up. These are only good in windy areas and once again there are environmentalists are against this.

Wave power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The costs vary and the recuperation costs vary pending the size and area it they are set up in. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Hydro-electric power is another avenue that is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The recuperation costs are around 50+ years pending the size of the damn. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

I see the one far left poster in particular mention the Tesla battery, well those batteries are very harmful to the environment. These cares are limited on the miles it can be driven between charges. And once again there are environmentalists are against this.

Nuclear power should not have been an option as it creates a by product with a half life of 5000 years, can you imagine the cost of keep up that up for 5000 years? Not to mention if something bad ever happens the devastation it causes. Many environmentalists are against this, but not as much as all the other forms of energy combined.

Gasoline could be manufactured better to be more efficient and cleaner burning, except that the far left is against lifting the draconian laws put in place to allow tis to happen. So they go to the car manufactures and tell them to adapt the cars to the inefficient way the US makes fuel. Even back in the eighties the Oil companies told congress that they could make the product more efficient and burn cleaner, the far left house run by Tip O'Neil said NO! This later came up once again when the AGW farce was being heard before congress when the Hack James Hansen was presenting his religious belief as science. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Natural gas is a clean and efficient way to power and heat buildings. The methods for gather natural gas have always be in question by the more radical environmental groups, but so far all the money they have spent trying to demonize this industry have shown it is about a belief and not any facts. And once again there environmental groups opposed to this.

Many of the so called alternative energy sources can help supplement energy, but is no where close to replacement. There will be little advancement in these areas. especially in solar and wind as many cash strapped governments have shut down their alternative energy projects in favor of their over bloated social programs.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

See, this is what happens when you allow Congress to fuck with the tax code through tax expenditures.  You can't whine about the other guy getting tax expenditures when your guy is getting even more of them.

Ban all tax expenditures.  Period.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Nuclear power should not have been an option as it creates a by product with a half life of 5000 years, can you imagine the cost of keep up that up for 5000 years?



This is a bogus argument which assumes we will be stumped for the next 5,000 years about what to do with nuclear waste.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nuclear power should not have been an option as it creates a by product with a half life of 5000 years, can you imagine the cost of keep up that up for 5000 years?
> ...



Ok show the plans and the cost projections for the next 5000 years to up keep this waste.


----------



## Mustang (Dec 30, 2013)

Redfish said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
Your interstate road system wasn't built with private capital. Neither were plenty of other public works projects which benefit both you, your neighbors, and businesses all across this country, both directly and indirectly.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

Mustang said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



I guess that you will ignore that the bulk of the US infrastructure was built during WWII and the great military industrial complex funded much of what you use today. Yet the far left wants to do away with it.

Then again much of medical knowledge of that time and advancements came after seizing the Nazi medical experiments on segments of it's population.

The hypocrisy of the far left knows no bounds.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

Mustang said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



The interstate highway system is a huge boondoggle that put a perfectly serviceable private railroad system out of business.  It did not benefit the taxpayers.  

Most "public works projects" could easily be financed privately if they are economically desirable.  The empirical evidence discredits your belief that only government can do such things


----------



## g5000 (Dec 30, 2013)

Kosh said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



You have a reading comprehension problem, I see.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Can you post this information or not?


----------



## Mustang (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 
LOL! What are you TALKING about? What private road system? To my knowledge, the roads have always been built, maintained, operated, and policed by gov't of one form or another with the exception of roads built on private land which the owner has every right to prevent the general public from using by blocking their access. That generally includes ranches and farms, etc.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Our dumb fuck once again demonstrates the depths of his ignorance. How do you think the original cross continental railroad was built? Not with private money. And there were massive gifts of land to the railroads to get them to build.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.



  The problem being the thirty to forty grand needed to set it up.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.
> ...



Only if you are a helpless dip that cannot work with your hands. Otherwise, less than 10K for a 5 kw system, less than 18K for a 10 kw system. And going down monthly.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nuclear power should not have been an option as it creates a by product with a half life of 5000 years, can you imagine the cost of keep up that up for 5000 years?
> ...



Actually there is work ongoing on gen 5 nukes that would actually 'burn' this waste, with waste products with 5 year or less half lives. Were we storing our waste in dry casks storage, we would not only have a much safer nuclear industry, but have a great deal of fuel for the future easily accessable.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power.  Don't believe a word of it.  One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:
> 
> American Thinker- Print Article
> 
> ...



Tell those in space stations that solar is a scam. I bet you get an ear full.


----------



## Moonglow (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Yep


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



  What ..? Like Pajama boy and most liberal pansies?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



Oh yeh. Care to follow this 70 year old lib around? Bet your lazy couldn't do it. Two twelve hour days Saturday and Sunday. Tomorrow and New Years Day, ten hour days. Millwright in a steel mill. 

You are the one posting big numbers as if there is no alternative. You fellows post this shit and then expect the rest of us just to believe your numbers. And when we look up those numbers, find they are bogus, you post shit like the 'pajama boy' referance. Mentally, you must be a retarded 13 year old.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



  Boy! It must really suck to be you,working at 70?  I was done at 46.
Stupid liberal.....
  As far as following a union member around? I dont see how walking to the break room every half hour would be considered exhausting. But at seventy I guess it might be.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 1, 2014)

Mustang said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



I said "private RAILROAD system," moron.  A number of private toll roads were built before the automakers conned state and local governments into building them.


----------



## elektra (Jan 1, 2014)

Kosh said:


> I see the far left posters are at it again:
> 
> Solar power is not a viable alternative to oil, natural gas, coal. The average recuperation of the solar panels on a house is close to 30 years. Not to mention that there are environmental groups that are opposed to large solar farms.
> 
> ...



Commercial Nuclear power waste

First and foremost it can be recycled, used again, like in France. Zero problems. Its called Breeder reactors.

Second we have tens of thousands of tons of Commercial Nuclear waste stored above ground in the USA with zero problems.  Over 55 years of Spent Nuclear fuel. 

Third, spent nuclear fuel is transferred across the USA all the time, every year, for decades. Zero problems.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2014)

elektra said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > I see the far left posters are at it again:
> ...



December 1984
The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, was temporarily shut down after the Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. In 1988 nearby residents sued and were granted a $73 million settlement by the government. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989. 1986
A truck carrying low-level radioactive material swerved to avoid a farm vehicle, went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity.

1979
The Critical Mass Energy Project (part of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Inc.) tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, including 17 involving radioactive contamination.

December 1962
A summary report was presented at an Atomic Energy Commission symposium in Germantown, Maryland, listing 47 accidents involving shipment of nuclear materials to that date, 17 of which were considered "serious."

U.S. Nuclear Accidents


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 7, 2014)

Pardon me for not quoting GOLDIROCKS  on those tales of nuclear woe he posted above..   Ive seen almost every "horror story " while debating the anti nuke kukes over the years...  So Fernald is very familiar.  *Fernald was a key component of our cold war nuclear weapons program*..  *Almost EVERY complaint of major nuclear contamination in US history is on the GOVT hands*..  Including the modern day CRISIS of 100s of leaking drums at Savanah River, Hanford, Oak Ridge and othe GOVT weapons facilities...    Theres a lesson here about how the govt that leftists adore becomes the most flagrant and unethical polluter.

in addition MOST of those transport accidents of ""low level waste are MEDICAL refuse from 1000s of Nuclear Med Departments in every county in the nation. BY VOLUME, this is are largest and most widespread nuclear waste issue.

NONE of this gets hung onto commercial nuclear power.. No matter how hard you try. Whether you are TRYING to imply a connection where none exists or not..  In fact,  the incompetence of GOVT handling of their weapons program only makes us appreciate the safety and diligience in commercial nuclear power.


----------



## elektra (Jan 7, 2014)

Mustang said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > The AGW cult has been claiming for decades the Solar Energy is almost as economical as conventional sources of power.  Don't believe a word of it.  One thing you always have to remember about libturds is that they have no qualms about lying if they think it will advance their agenda:
> ...



Solar panels start as raw materials like silica from mines so to begin any discussion you must acknowledge you have no idea of what your talking about.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 7, 2014)

elektra said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Correct.. I saw that grossly naive post from the Mustang and debated whether it would do any good to fix all those misconceptions. 

1) "Solar energy can't be controlled or exploited... " So our Solar marketing/engineering competition that we've lost to (primarily) China doesn't allow THEM to exploit the US for supply of Solar power? 
The large companies formed to design, build and operate Solar Energy Generation stations aren't setting their own prices?? 

2) "No one owns the Sun" ---- If it's all free and democratic, how come it has to be MASSIVELY subsidized? The eco-nauts have this juvenile view of a power generator being all about the fuel that it runs.. It's equipment repair/maintenance and labor and LAND AND FACILITIES as well. PLENTY of costs and investments that SOMEONE might make.. And even if the sun is FREE --- this operation only runs about 6 hours a day ON A GOOD DAY. 

When you reach a threshold of flaky renewables on your grid -- the costs start to escalate as you must add WHOPPING LARGE storage mechanisms to avoid destabilizing during switching generators when renewables suddenly decide to take a break. Haven't even BEGUN to see how expensive "a free Sun" really can be..

Especially because for every Solar farm or Wind Field, there's a REAL GENERATOR idling and wasting fuel and personnel salaries waiting for a passing cloud or a null in the wind.. You are paying for TWO generators --- when ONE would do.. .


----------



## Politico (Jan 8, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Electricity consumers are getting fucked up the ass for every watt of solar installed.
> 
> That's the bottom line.



Ahh that's what this is really about. Me saving money costs you more and it's pissing you off.



bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.
> ...



That is really clueless.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 8, 2014)

herewegoagain said:


> old rocks said:
> 
> 
> > herewegoagain said:
> ...



--lol


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jan 8, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> If you have a house or property where you can install a south facing group of panels, you can not only provide for all your own power in your home, you can also provide the fuel for your EV. Now that is a real step toward economic independence. Of course, that is something our 'Conservatives' do not want to see at all. They much prefer to give their money away to the 1%.



I am conservative. I use solar power.   I am completely off-grid.  Solar power has its limits.  I have not grid to sell my "excess" power to.  But solar and wind energy are limited.  You cannot power major industry or an entire city off either.


----------



## elektra (Jan 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



You must be agitatated or something, you realize that your posts have nothing to do with the points I made.

I stated "Spent Nuclear Fuel", as in High Level Radioactive Waste from Commercial Power Plants. Do you know the difference between Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and what you described which is a Liberal managed Department of Energy project. Of course the government is unaccountable to the public, I was not speaking of the accountability of the government bureaucracy you support and praise. 

Further, your also going back to Liberal Democrat administrations to try and support your false premise. Seriously, you had to go back to the last Century to try and find something? 

Hey, a lots has changed since John F. Kennedy got shot, 1962? Was that back when they transported the Nuclear waste with horse drawn carriages?


----------

